Uniformity v. diversity of internet intermediaries’ liability regimes: where does the ECJ stand?
Uniformity v. diversity of internet intermediaries’ liability regimes: where does the ECJ stand?
This paper seeks to determine the scope of the ECJ’s decision of 23 March 2010 and its impact upon the laws of Member state. Thereby it attempts to stress the different sources of conflicts that can arise when national judges have to deal with the tricky issue of Internet intermediaries’ liability. At the same time this paper tries to give a sense of what is the institutional function of European private law in a multilevel system of governance. Whereas the first begins with examining the means used by the Court to bring national laws closer through a uniform interpretation of key European provisions, the second part highlights the significant regulatory leeway granted to Member states. This leeway explains why horizontal and diagonal conflicts are likely to persist until a constructive inter-normative dialogue between national courts takes place, following in step with traditional top down method of harmonisation
51-61
Stalla-Bourdillon, Sophie
c189651b-9ed3-49f6-bf37-25a47c487164
2011
Stalla-Bourdillon, Sophie
c189651b-9ed3-49f6-bf37-25a47c487164
Stalla-Bourdillon, Sophie
(2011)
Uniformity v. diversity of internet intermediaries’ liability regimes: where does the ECJ stand?
Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology, 6 (1), .
Abstract
This paper seeks to determine the scope of the ECJ’s decision of 23 March 2010 and its impact upon the laws of Member state. Thereby it attempts to stress the different sources of conflicts that can arise when national judges have to deal with the tricky issue of Internet intermediaries’ liability. At the same time this paper tries to give a sense of what is the institutional function of European private law in a multilevel system of governance. Whereas the first begins with examining the means used by the Court to bring national laws closer through a uniform interpretation of key European provisions, the second part highlights the significant regulatory leeway granted to Member states. This leeway explains why horizontal and diagonal conflicts are likely to persist until a constructive inter-normative dialogue between national courts takes place, following in step with traditional top down method of harmonisation
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
Published date: 2011
Organisations:
Southampton Law School
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 201447
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/201447
ISSN: 1901-8401
PURE UUID: 9ce33aad-17a1-4bf1-ae96-31fb207a1cb8
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 28 Oct 2011 14:26
Last modified: 09 Jan 2022 03:35
Export record
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics
