The combined reading of the thorough analysis made by the Court in this recent decision and in the previous decision concerning Twitter offers a valuable framework for identifying provisions that may be considered abusive or unlawful within the meaning of French consumer law and the legislation on the protection of personal data.
Decree n°2018-1126 of December 11, 2018 on the protection of trade secrets adopted in furtherance of Law n°2018-670 of July 30, 2018 was published in the Official Journal of the French Republic on December 13, 2018.
This eagerly awaited Decree further details the procedural aspects related to the protection of trade secrets and offers innovative and pragmatic solutions to maintain a balance between the various interests at stake throughout the procedure.
The vast majority of the provisions set forth in the Decree entered into force on December 14, 2018.
Twitter was ordered to change all of its contractual documentation intended for French users and to make the entire judgment publicly available.
While it did not drastically alter the changes brought about by Ordinance n° 2016-131 of February 10, 2016, the Ratification Law n° 2018-287 of April 20, 2018 did modify some aspects of French contract law and introduced a distinction between substantive amendments that will become effective as from the entry into force of the Ratification Law, i.e. October 18, 2018, and so-called “interpretative” amendments that will apply retroactively to contracts entered into on and after October 1, 2016.
This article provides a non-exhaustive overview of the provisions of the Ratification Law which have a practical implication on business law, in particular at the formation of the contract and throughout its performance.
On March 6, 2018, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union issued a judgment stating that the UNCITRAL arbitration clause included in a Bilateral Investment Treaty that establishes a mechanism for settling disputes between an investor and an EU Member State is incompatible with EU law.
On the Internet, determining the location of a damage is particularly complex as such damage may occur in a multitude of places. In this context, the question arises as to what criterion should be applied to determine the court that is territorially competent to hear a tort claim seeking compensation for the damage resulting from a harmful event that occurred on the Internet.
In a decision dated October 18, 2017, the First Civil Chamber of the Cour de Cassation (French Supreme Court) recalled that the mere fact that the French audience has access to a website broadcasting a video ad that infringes copyrights is sufficient to establish the jurisdiction of French courts.
Ce site utilise des cookies pour vous proposer une expérience de navigation personnalisée. En utilisant ce site, vous acceptez notre usage des cookies comme expliqué dans nos Mentions Légales
Merci de lire nos Mentions Légales pour plus d'informaiton sur notre usage des cookies.AccepterEn savoir plus au sujet des cookies