This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
For privacy infringement, previous actions had been brought under the cause of action of breach of confidence [11] , which is a claim in equity and, thus it was unclear whether for such actions jurisdiction lies at the place of where the damage occurs.
Reimann: Human Rights Litigation Beyond the Alien Tort Claims Act: The Crucial Role of the Act of State Doctrine. Even after the Supreme Court’s dismantling of the Alien Tort Claims Act jurisdiction remains possible, though everything depends on the circumstances.
The result of the authors’ analyses of Nigerian appellate courts’ cases bordering on the jurisdiction of Nigerian courts in actions in personam arising from causes of action which accrue outside the territorial jurisdiction of the courts is particularly eye-opening.
In addition, the Bundesgerichtshof commented on disputed questions of private international law concerning the limitation of liability under maritime law. Under the Rome II Regulation, however, the court classified such claims not as tort claims but as claims falling under Art. 10 (“unjust enrichment”).
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content