Country Of Origin Principle Research Articles

The Country of Origin Principle and the Applicable Law for Obligations Related to the Benefit of Information Society Services

The article takes all of the abovementioned legacy of European Union Law into consideration while analysing them in depth through the prism of the principle in question and via careful comparisons of each of them as well. Particular attention is paid to the following issues, namely: the legal nature of the principle in question, its treaty sources, its scope of application, the principle in question in the light of the abovementioned directives – namely the Directive on audiovisual media services and the Directive on electronic commerce; and finally – relationships between provisions of the two aforementioned directives in the context of audiovisual media services on demand. While working on the text, all of the mentioned parts of the main subject turned out to be important enough to put them into separated sections of the text with their own individual headings. In the meantime, several interesting subject-related sentences by the European Court of Justice were also taken into account for a broadened pool of reference. To sum it all up: ultimately, the principle in question and its potential influence on the practical functioning of the European Union’s law and economy has been considered thoroughly.

(Counter-)Narrating European integration

In order to maintain social standards within the European Union, trade unions have to overcome national differences to form common political positions. Especially against the background of the recent enlargement rounds, the crafting of such positions has become a daunting task. In this context, the European Services Directive has posed an important challenge to trade unions: The so-called ‘country of origin principle’ implied that workers were supposed to be employed in line with the standards of the sending- and not the receiving country. After lengthy discussions between representatives from Eastern and Western Europe, the trade unionists managed to form a joint political line and forced the European Commission to remove the principle. In order to challenge the hegemonic neoliberal narrative of the common market bringing freedom and prosperity to the countries of Europe, the article will show how the counternarrative of a European Social Model served as a reference frame for this joint position.

Platform Liability for Hate Speech & the Country of Origin Principle: Too Much Internal Market?

Platform Liability for Hate Speech & the Country of Origin Principle: Too Much Internal Market?

Services, Citizenship, and the Country of Origin Principle

The country of origin principle requires states to apply different legal regimes to companies and persons according to their state of origin. This looks rather like nationality discrimination, contrary to Article 12 EC. It is also fundamentally at odds with one of the central pillars of citizenship, both national and European; equality between citizens. The preference for a relatively unfettered country of origin principle in the Services Directive raises doubts whether the directive has an adequate legal basis, and in any case makes it undesirable. It is an example of economic law that has profound impacts on many non-economic aspects of life. It fragments jurisdictions, and therefore societies. Yet it has been made with only the narrowest of trade interests in mind. It shows the danger of allowing technocracy-led legislation. And nor are the economic arguments even good. If Member States cannot apply their law within their jurisdiction, then their capacity to develop coherent regulatory regimes is undermined, and the competition between these regimes which might revitalise national legislation, to the benefit of economic and non-economic life, cannot take place. The degree of openness of markets is only one part of wealth creation, and so should be part of regulatory competition, not a precondition for it.

The E-Commerce Directive as the Cornerstone of the Internal Market

The paper assesses the effects of the E-Commerce Directive which plays a key role in the development of online platforms in Europe and, on that basis, proposes some reforms for the forthcoming Digital Services Act. The paper shows that the country of origin principle is the greatest successes of the E-commerce Directive and should be maintained in the forthcoming Digital Services Act. It could even be extended to cover the online platforms which are not established in the EU but provide their services to EU customers, for instance by requiring the designation of a representative in the EU. However, to be accepted and effective, this ‘passport system’ requires trust between Member States and their citizens that the regulation in the country of origin is sufficiently protective and effectively enforced. The puzzle of rules applicable to online platforms and their enforcement mechanisms should also be made more coherent and effective, in particular by improving the baseline liability regime of online platforms and by strengthening the regulation of online advertising. The new rules imposed by the Audio-visual Media Services Directive on the video-sharing platforms are a good starting point and could be generalised to others types of online platforms. The paper also proposes that the new law: (1) prescribes strong, swift and scalable remedies against over-removal of legitimate content, including through an external Alternative Dispute Resolution to incentivize better internal quality review; (2) sets concrete incentives for high-quality notification and review process by means of elaborate rules developed through technical standardization in different areas; (3) clarifies the passivity criterion by linking it to editorial choices and thereby avoiding discouragement of voluntary preventive measures; (4) includes a set of new safe harbours, at least for hyperlinks, search engines and domain name authorities; and (5) creates an EU-wide legal basis for targeted measures (preventive or corrective) responding to the risks posed by the hosting providers provided that the evidence suggests a failure the notice and takedown process and that they remain compliant with the no monitoring obligation and fundamental rights. Smart regulatory techniques such as self- and co-regulation should continue to be encouraged given the rapid and uncertain market evolution as well as the exponential increase of online content. However, to respect our EU values, in particular human rights and rule of law, better safeguards need to be set up: Codes of conduct should be accepted by the main stakeholders representing all the interested parties and values and that their implementation should be regularly monitored in a transparent and independent manner.

Enforcement of Harmonization Relying on the Country of Origin Principle

The Country of Origin (COO) Principle is frequently used as the template for secondary legislation aiming at realizing the internal market. The main feature of the harmonization using this model is that the home Member State should enforce the minimum requirement agreed on for issuing the relevant authorization, licence, etc. The other Member States in which the authorization, etc., is used (the host Member States) should recognize the harmonization and should neither enforce their own conditions for issuing an authorization, etc., nor try to make a parallel enforcement of the harmonized minimum requirement. Thus, the proper compliance with this type of harmonization faces two challenges: how to ensure that the host Member State enforces the minimum requirements agreed upon and continues to ensure that these are complied with, and how to ensure that the host Member States do not take it upon themselves to enforce the same requirements. If these two challenges are not overcome, the harmonization is not likely to work as intended, and consequently both the EU legislator and the Court of Justice of the European Union have taken different steps to overcome these challenges. By focusing on a selection of different areas using the COO Principle (insurance, driving licence, road haulage transport, audiovisual media services and credit institutions) these challenges and the remedies put in place to overcome them are analysed. This includes an analysis of recent reforms undertaken in these areas as well as an analysis of relevant case law. It is shown that different approaches have been used successfully to ensure better compliance, but there also seems to be approaches that are either less functional or a ‘no go’.

Miejsce zasady państwa pochodzenia w funkcjonowaniu rynku wewnętrznego w odniesieniu do świadczenia usług

Zasada państwa pochodzenia ma w swej genezie zbliżanie prawa państw członkowskich UE. Jej symbioza z zasadą wzajemnego uznawania przepisów prawnych za ekwiwalentne legła u podstaw rynku wewnętrznego. Jego formalne powstanie nie byłoby możliwe, gdyby termin jego utworzenia nie został zaprogramowany w Jednolitym Akcie Europejskim jako efekt procesów harmonizacji prawa państw członkowskich. Zaistniała ona w związku z rynkiem usług, a więc z tym zadaniem, które wzbogaciło integrację europejską w ramach rynku wewnętrznego. Referat dotyczy tej symbiozy, składa się z rozważań o jej „blaskach i cieniach” oraz samej zasady państwa pochodzenia jako reguły przewodniej rynku wewnętrznego. „Blaski” to sposób jej ujęcia w dyrektywie e-commerce, jak też w projekcie dyrektywy o usługach z 5 marca 2004 r. oraz w orzecznictwie ETS. Natomiast cieniem jest to, co ostatecznie znalazło się w tej dyrektywie oraz podejście do niej w Rzymie I i Rzymie II. Zasada państwa pochodzenia jest uzupełniającą konstrukcją wobec kolizyjnej normy prawa prywatnego międzynarodowego dla określania prawa właściwego, wykształconą przez orzecznictwo ETS i unijne prawo pochodne na potrzeby rynku wewnętrznego głównie w dziedzinie usług. Jest to zasada priorytetowa i przyszłościowa. Jej pominięcie w dyrektywie o usługach nie oznacza jej „upadku”. Jeżeli ten rynek ma się realizować nieunikniony jest jej rozwój w prawie UE. Koncepcja „obszarów skoordynowanych” służy bowiem wzbogacaniu tego prawa, bez potrzeby reformowania prawa pierwotnego, zwłaszcza w dziedzinach, wobec których brak jest unijnych kompetencji prawotwórczych.&nbsp

What We Talk About When We Talk About Harmonisation

AbstractWhen we talk about harmonisation, we may mean quite different things. There is a close, yet often unclear, relationship between minimum harmonisation and mutual recognition on the one hand, and between full harmonisation and the country of origin principle on the other hand. This paper will discuss harmonisation in relation to these other regulatory models with, among others, the Tobacco Products and Services Directives as illustrations. Moreover, many years afterTobbaco Advertising IandIIit remains entirely unclear how minimum harmonisation instruments must be designed in order to be lawful. This paper proposes a consistent reading of the case law on what is called legislative minimum harmonisation based on Article 114 TFEU. It is also shown that the Court of Justice of the European Union applies a lenient standard to more stringent national measures under what is called constitutional minimum harmonisation based on competences for social policy and the environment.

A Comparison of the Services Directive with the Case Law of the Court of Justice: A Case Study

This article describes some key features of the Directive in light of the case law of the Court, starting with the question, ‘What is a service?’ Followed by the restrictions on the free movement to provide services, and concluding with the ‘country of origin principle’ and some of its critics.

Country of Origin Principle in the EU Market for Audiovisual Media Services: Consumer’s Friend or Foe?

The country of origin principle, the cornerstone of the EU Television Without Frontiers Directive – to become the Audiovisual Media Services Directive – is often criticised as being insensitive to the legitimate national public interest to protect viewers – and consumers – of audiovisual media content. This paper seeks to demystify this pessimistic perception of the country of origin rule from the perspective of the consumer interest. It demonstrates that the possible negative repercussions of the country of origin logic for consumer welfare are mitigated in three ways: by specific derogations possibilities foreseen in the Directive in case of violations of the fundamental rules on protection of minors and of human dignity; through the margin of broadcasting control left to the Member States in the areas beyond those coordinated by the Directive, and by means of a new two-step anti-circumvention procedure introduced by the new Directive.

Country of origin principle in the E-commerce Directive: is it of any significance?

Country of origin principle in the E-commerce Directive: is it of any significance?

Implications of the country of origin principle in the E-Commerce Directive

The internet has made it substantially easier for businesses to reach a global marketplace, but commercial activities which influence different markets are likely to become subject to the legal regime of those states. In the absence of globally accepted standards for geographical delimitation of content on the internet, the infringement of foreign law is a risk which businesses inevitable will run when carrying out e-commerce on the internet. The prospect that a website owner might be hauled into a courtroom in a far-off jurisdiction is much more than a mere academic exercise. Compliance with national laws is rarely sufficient to limit a business's exposure to legal risks. Complying with law on a global basis is if possible at all and expensive.

Consumer interests and contract law in the draft directive on services in the internal market

Already the Treaty of Rome of 1957 provided for the creation of a common market in services. The Single European Act of 1986 reinforced the provisions of the original Treaty. The Community has since come closer to this aim, but is not nearly there yet. A body of European consumer protection legislation has been created in the meantime. In the draft Directive on services in the internal market, this area of the law is largely excluded from the country of origin principle. Whether or not one agrees with the extent and content of that legislation, at least its exclusion from the scope of the draft Directive follows a certain logic. The same cannot be said of other concerns voiced against the draft. These might still be enough to thwart the adoption of an instrument that would mean a timid but overdue step in the liberalisation of cross-border services in the European Community.

The European Directive on e-Commerce (2000/31/EC) and its Consequences on the Conflict of Laws

The article deals with the European directive on electronic commerce (2000/31/EC). In its ambiguous formulation concerning the country of origin principle, the directive seems to put forward more questions than answers, and especially its relationship to choice of law rules in private international law is doubtful. In an attempt to sort out the doctrinal debate, the article tries to find a solution to the question of how the directive might influence private international law rules and what the practical consequences are. Bearing in mind that the ordinary rules of conflict do not always operate very well for internet problems, the country of origin principle might work as the best solution.

The Country of Origin Principle in the E-commerce Directive – A Conflict with Conflict of Laws?

Abstract: The question of the legal nature of the so-called country of origin principle in Article 3 of the EC E-commerce Directive causes great confusion. Many, including e-service providers, advocate that the provision should be understood as a choice of law rule designating the law of the place of establishment of the service provider as applicable. However, Article 1(4) of the Directive explicitly states that no additional rules of private international law are created. Is there a conflict within the Directive or can such a conflict be avoided? There are basically three ways in which the country of origin principle could be understood: (i) the E-commerce Directive establishes a choice of law rule for the law applicable to e-commerce services, irrespective of the provision in Article 1(4); (ii) the country of origin principle of the E-commerce Directive only sets out certain limitations to the application of the designated law; (iii) the Directive makes the rules of the home country of the service provider internationally mandatory and thus applicable irrespective of what law is applicable to the contract or tort etc. This article analyses the three alternatives and advocates the last solution as the one which is not only line with the legislative intent but also permits the Directive to maintain logical coherence.

Le projet de directive Bolkestein : Le bouc emissaire ou le Frankestein de i'Europe

The project of the directive on services in the internal marketcalled as the directive Bolkestein, with reference to the previous EU Commissioner for the internal marketis widely discussed throughout the European Union. The object of the directive is presented as providing a legal framework that will eliminate the obstacles to the freedom of establishment for service providers and the free movement of services between the member states. The country of origin principle and the concept of service are two main points which make the project controversial. According to the country of origin principle, a service provider is broadly subject to the legislation of his country of establishment and not the country where the service is provided. This principle is criticized as it is seen against the policy of harmonization. It may cause some problems on labour law as well. The concept of service is also subject to critiques since it is extremely large and it covers nearly all economic activity. However we must admit that the free movement of services is one of the objects ofEU, we may also affirm that the method chosen by the directive to reach this object seems against the European logic and the model.

Ursprungslandprinzip, Wettbewerb der Staaten und Freiheit

Zusammenfassung Die Wirkungsprozesse, die vom Ursprungslandprinzip ausgehen und zu Deregulierungen fuhren, lassen sich nicht pauschal als Bestandteile des Wettbewerbs der Staaten fassen. Ein Großteil der Deregulierungswirkungen vollzieht sich über die internationalen Güterströme, indem Importkonkurrenten, die wegen ungünstiger Rahmenbedingungen Marktanteile an ausländische Konkurrenten verlieren, sich bei dem inländischen Staat um eine Deregulierung bemühen. Die typische Struktur, die Wettbewerbsprozesse sonst ausmacht, tritt hierbei nicht auf. Lediglich bei Deregulierungswirkungen, die sich über die Investitionen multinationaler Unternehmen vollziehen, handelt es sich um einen Prozeß des Wettbewerbs der Staaten. Die Anwendung des Ursprungslandprinzips hat als mögliche Option der Wirtschaftspolitik den Anforderungen gerecht zu werden, die sich aus den Prinzipien einer freiheitlichen Gesellschaftsordnung ergeben. Diese Prinzipien umfassen das Freiheitsrecht, den Gleichheitsgrundsatz und das Demokratieprinzip. Das Ursprungslandprinzip ist mit den Prinzipien der Ordnung der Freiheit vereinbar, soweit es der Anerkennung ausländischer Produktionsstandards gilt. Es verstößt indessen gegen diese Prinzipien, wenn es auf Produktstandards angewendet wird. Dies gilt nicht nur für Vorschriften zum Schutz Dritter, sondern auch für solche zum Schutz der Abnehmer und zu sonstigen Zwecken.

The electronic commerce legal regulation features within the European Union

Considering that improving access to digital goods and services, creating an environment where digital networks and services can thrive, positioning of digitalization as the driving force of everything new, it becomes clear that an e-commerce legal platform of EU business entities activity will soon be subject to review in the EU and in connection with this fact, the study of the features of modern legal regulation of electronic commerce within the EU becomes both theoretical and practical relevance and significance.
 The article deals with the peculiarities of legal regulation of electronic commerce within the European Union. The author of the article has analyzed in detail the legal framework and the legal norms that regulate the implementation of e-commerce in the EU and which have the greatest impact on the implementation of foreign economic activity. These norms were grouped in three directions: 1) norms that set the country of origin principle; 2) rules that recognize the legal force of electronic contracts and regulate the procedure for their conclusion; 3) rules that limit the liability of third party content providers. For this research, an analysis of secondary law of the European Union governing the conduct of electronic commerce within the Union has been carried out. Particular attention is paid to the study of the provisions of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information services, in particular e-commerce, in the internal market, namely, on the internal market, aimed at promoting the development of the EU information services market in the EU, on the principles of the conclusion of electronic agreements in the EU, a list of the minimum information that the information society service provider must give to the customer in the EU, as well as the provisions minimizing the Internet intermediaries liability for the actions of third parties related to the implementation of electronic commerce.