Decision – E-Commerce Directive question
ECJ held that Article 3 does not have the effect of harmonising private international law at the national level.
ECJ noted that Article 1(4) sets out that the Directive “does not establish additional rules on private international law”.
Article 3(1) imposed an obligation on Member States to ensure that information services provided by a service provider complied with national laws.
Article 3(2) did not require transposition in the form of a specific conflict of laws rule.
Additionally, the ECJ noted that Article 3 precludes the application of a law that would be more strict than the law applicable in the Member State in which the service provider is established.
Comments
The ECJ in eDate/Martinez extended the applicability of the findings in Shevill:
not only cases involving defamation, but also “a wide range of infringements to personality rights recognised in various legal systems”
not only published and printed medium (ie a newspaper), but also published material on the internet.
Reasoning makes sense in the context of the increasing use of electronic communication platforms such as online newspaper publications, etc.
…
