Jurisdiction and Costs in Recent Inter-EU Cases of Démenti and Apology for Falsifying History
Abstract
This study covers two issues concerning the intra-EU proceedings in the cases of personality rights infringement. The core of the analyzed matters are the special (alternative) jurisdiction and the costs of the proceedings. These problems are interesting both from the theoretical and the practical standpoints. The discussed judgments concern the dissemination of statements that constitute a historical falsification that is usually caused by using the expression Polish concentration camps instead of Nazi-German concentration camps. The CJEU recently address the issue of the special (alternative) jurisdiction based on Art. 7 (2) Brussels I Recast Regulation in such cases in the judgment from June 17, 2021, for the case C-800/19. This study analyses this judgment and the exclusion of jurisdiction based on ‘center of life interests’ in such cases for the ‘indivisible’ claims (e.g. the claim for apology). The problem of the costs is discussed from the perspective of the enforcement proceedings of foreign judgments in the intra-EU cases based on the German Supreme Court’s judgment from July 19, 2018 (IX ZB 10/18). The high costs of such proceedings based on the German Code of Civil Procedure were analyzed from the perspective of the access to court rule based on Article 6 (1) ECHR and the jurisprudence of EctHR.
References
Basedow J. (2004) ‘Die Verselbständigung des europäischen ordre public’ in Coester, M., Martiny, D., Prinz von Sachsen Gessaphe, K.A (eds.) Privatrecht in Europa. Vielfalt, Kollision, Kooperation, Festschrift fur Hans Jürgen Sonnenberger zum 70. Geburtstag, München: Verlag C.H. Beck.
Bogdan M. (2011) ‘Defamation on the Internet, Forum Delicti and the E-Commerce Directive: Some Comments on the ECJ Judgment in the eDate Case’, Yearbook of Private International Law, Vol. 13, pp. 483–491.
Fahrner M. (2020) ‘Back to the Roots – the Obligation(s) to Punish Negationism in German’ in P. Grzebyk (ed.). Responsibility for negation of international crimes. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Wymiaru Sprawiedliwości.
Frąckowiak-Adamska A. (2015) ‘Time for a European ‘full faith and credit clause’, Common Market Law Review, 52(1), pp. 191–218.
Francq S. (2007) in Magnus U., Mankowski, P. (eds), Brussels I Regulation. München: Sellier.
Garlicki L. (2010a) in L. Garlicki (ed) Konwencja o Ochronie Praw Człowieka i Podstawowych Wolności. Komentarz do artykułów 1–18, t. 1. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo C.H. Beck.
Garlicki L. (2010b) Wolność wypowiedzi dziennikarza – przywileje i odpowiedzialność, EPS, 2010/1, pp. 12–17.
Hess B. (2021) Europäisches Zivilprozessrecht. Berlin–Boston: Walter de Gruyter GmbH.
Hess B., Pfeiffer T. (2011) ‘Interpretation of the Public Policy. Exception as referred to in EU Instruments of Private International and Procedural Law’ Commissioned by the European Parliament, Brussels.
Hofmański P., Wróbel A. (2010) in L. Garlicki (ed.) Konwencja o ochronie praw człowieka i podstawowych wolności. Komentarz do artykułów 1-18, t. I. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo C.H. Beck.
Kamiński I. C. (2020) ‘Debates over History and the European Convention on Human Rights’ in Grzebyk, P. (ed.) Responsibility for negation of international crimes. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Wymiaru Sprawiedliwości.
Kargopoulos A.-I. (2015) ‘ECHR and the CJEU Competing, overlapping, or Supplementary Competences?’, The European Criminal Law Associations‘ Forum, 2015/3, pp. 96–100.
Kerameus K. (2007) ‘Commentary to Article 45 of ‘Brussels I’ Regulation’ in Magnus, U., Mankowski, P. (eds) Brussels I Regulation, München: Sellier.
Lobba P. (2015) ‘Holocaust Denial before the European Court of Human Rights: Evolution of an Exceptional Regime’, European Journal of International Law, 26(1), pp. 237–253.
Mostowik P., Figura-Góralczyk E. (2021) ‘Polish Death Camps’ as an ‘Opinion’ of which Expressing is Protected by German Law? Questionable Bundesgerichtshof’s Judgement of 19.7.2018’ in Bainczyk, M., Kubiak-Cyrul, A. (eds.) States’ responsibility for international crimes: Reflections upon the Rosenburg exhibition. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Mostowik P., Figura-Góralczyk E. (2022) ‘The issue of limits to national order public in non-enforcement of judgements in EU: Case study’, Journal of Private International Law, in print.
Nowicka A. (2019) ‘Wykonywanie orzeczeń sądów polskich w sprawach cywilnych w państwach członkowskich Unii Europejskiej, z uwzględnieniem ewentualności powołania się przez sądy zagraniczne na klauzulę porządku publicznego’ in A. Radwan, M. Berent (eds.) Prawda historyczna a odpowiedzialność prawna za jej negowanie lub zniekształcanie. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo C.H. Beck.
Reymond M. (2011) ‘The ECJ eDate Decision: A Case Comment’, Yearbook of Private International Law, Vol. 13, pp. 493–506.
Schabas W. A. (2015) The European Convention on Human Rights: A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Siehr K. (2008) ‘Kollisionen des Kollisionsrechts’ in Baetge D., Hein J. v., Hinden M. v. (eds), Die richtige Ordnung. Festschrift für Jan Kropholler zum 70. Geburtstag, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Sonnenberger H.J. (2006) ‘Wandlungen und Perspektiven des familienrechtlichen ordre public’ in Freitag R., Leible S., Sippel H., Wanitzek U. (eds), Internationales Familienrecht für das 21. Jahrhundert. Symposium zum 65. Geburtstag von Professor Dr. Ulrich Spellenberg, München: Sellier.
Wautelet P. (2007) in Magnus U., Mankowski P. (eds), Brussels I Regulation, München: Sellier
