Jurisdiction in tort claims for cross-border defamation in the laws of ‎Iran, England and the European Union

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Private Law, Department of Law, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, university of ‎Guilan, Rasht, Iran

2 Department of Law, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, university of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

3 Department of Law, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, university of Guilan, Rasht, iran‎

Abstract

Today, with the advancement of communication, defamation claims have crossed the national borders, it is possible for several foreign elements to be involved in a claim. In this situation, several courts may apply jurisdiction based on their relationship with those elements. This issue is problematic where there is a little connection between those elements and the jurisdiction. Therefore, legal systems must provide jurisdictional rules that prevent such a challenge. In this research, it will be investigated what jurisdictional criteria are used by the legal systems of Iran, England and the European Union in these claims. Can these rules meet the legitimate expectations of private individuals and at the same time have the necessary flexibility in view of the evolution of technology? In the English legal system, the legislators have adopted special rules for defamation which provides that, the courts can hear the lawsuit if England is the most appropriate place to file that claim. therefore, the English courts should examine the connection of the lawsuit with other jurisdictions. In the European Union, in addition to the general rule of the defendant's place of residence, the place of damage where the defamation was published also has jurisdiction. In EU law, the center of the victim’s interests will be competent in internet defamation. However, there are no specific rules for defamation in Iranian law, and the general jurisdiction rules will be applicable in the case of defamation. This Iranian approach is ineffective for defamation and will cause difficulties for litigants.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. “Depp II v News Group Newspapers Ltd; Anor [2020] EWHC 2911 (QB) (02 November 2020)”, n.d, at: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2020/2911.html, last visited at: 13/04/2023.
  2. “eDate Advertising GmbH v X and Olivier Martinez and Robert Martinez v MGN Limited”, n.d, at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62009CJ0509&from=EN, last visited at: 22/09/2023.
  3. “Fiona Shevill, Ixora Trading Inc., Chequepoint SARL and Chequepoint International Ltd v Presse Alliance SA.”, n.d, at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:61993CJ0068&from=EN, last visited at: 2/10/2023.
  4. “King v Lewis & Ors [2004] EWHC 168 (QB) England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division)”, n.d, at: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff72160d03e7f57ea8295, last visited at: 2/10/2023.
  5. “Wright v Ver [2020] EWCA Civ 672 England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division)”, n.d, at: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5ed4a3bf2c94e01262d17cc8, last visited at: 28/2/2023.
  6. Asensio, Pedro De Miguel (2020). Conflict of Laws and the Internet, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
  7. Auda, Ali (2016). “A proposed solution to the problem of libel tourism”, Journal of Private International Law, 12(1), 106-131.
  8. Bariatti, Stefania (2011). Cases and Materials on EU Private International Law, Portland: Hart Publishing.
  9. Briggs, Adrian (2013). The conflict of Laws, Third Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  10. Briggs, Adrian (2021). Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments, Seventh edition, Oxon: Routledge.
  11. Calster, Geert van (2016). European Private International Law, Second Edition, Portland: Hart Publishing.
  12. Collier, J. G. (1987). “Staying of Actions and Forum Non Conveniens. English Law Goes Scotch”, The Cambridge Law Journal, 46(1), 33-35.
  13. Fellmeth, Aaron Xavier & Horwitz, Maurice (2009). Guide to latin in international law, First Edition, New York: Oxford University Press.
  14. Gillies, Lorna (2012). “Jurisdiction for cross-border breach of personality and defamation: EDate Advertising and Martinez”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 61(4), 1007-1016.
  15. Hartley, Trevor (2009). International Commercial Litigation (Text, Cases and Materials on Private International Law), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  16. Hartley, Trevor C (2010). “Libel Tourism and Conflict of Laws”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 59(1), 25-38.
  17. Hörnle, Julia (2021). Internet Jurisdiction (Law and Practice), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  18. Martin, Elizabeth (2011). Oxford Dictionary of Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  19. McEleavy, Peter; Cuniberti, Gilles (2005). “I. Forum non conveniens and the Brussels Convention”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 54(4), 973 – 981.
  20. Nielsen, Peter Arnt (2013). “Libel Tourism: English and EU Private International Law”, Journal of Private International Law, 9(2), 269 - 288.
  21. Rodger, Barry J. (2006). “Forum Non Conveniens Post-Owusu”, Journal of Private International Law, 2(1) , 71-97.
  22. Rogerson, Pippa (2013). Collier’s Conflict of Laws, Fourth Edition, New York: Cambridge University Press.
  23. Stone, Peter (2010). EU Private International Law, Second Edition, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Comparative Law Review
Volume 14, Issue 2
Autumn $ Winter 2023-2024
January 2024
Pages 859-882

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics