Is the Market Classification of Risk Always Efficient? - Evidence from German Third Party Motor Insurance

This paper studies the empirical effects of risk classification in the mandatory third-party motor insurance of Germany following the European Union’s directive to de-regulate insurance tariffs of 1994. We find evidence that inefficient risk categories had been selected while potentially efficient information was dismissed. Risk classification did generally not improve the efficiency of contracting or the composition of insureds in this market. These findings are partly explained by the continuing existence of institutional restraints in this market such as compulsory fixed coverage and unitary owner insurance.

Ist die staatliche Risikoübernahme bei Terrorrismusrisiken mit dem europäischen Wettbewerbsrecht vereinbar?

Nach den terroristischen Anschlägen vom 11. September 2001 wurde sowohl in der Versicherungspraxis als auch in der Wissenschaft kontrovers darüber diskutiert, ob der Staat bei solchen als "nicht versicherbar" geltenden Terrorismusrisiken mithaften soll. Als Folge der Ereignisse des 11. September 2001 ist in Deutschland die Extremus Versicherungsaktiengesellschaft entstanden, die Versicherungsschutz gegen Terrorismusrisiken anbietet und an de-ren Haftung der deutsche Staat beteiligt ist. Fraglich ist, ob eine solche Staatsbeteiligung an der Extremus AG eine unzulässige Beihilfe im Sinne des Art. 87 EGV darstellt und damit gegen das europäische Wettbewerbsrecht verstößt. Die wettbewerbsrechtliche Überprüfung der Extremus AG hat ergeben, dass die der Extremus AG gegebene staatliche Beihilfe in Form von Staatsgarantie ausnahmsweise zulässig ist.

Internet Service Provider Liability - The Swiss Perspective

Switzerland does not have a concrete legal framework dealing with rights and obligations of ISPs; however, legal doctrine and practice apply similar principles as stated in the E-Commerce Directive of the EU. The liability of ISPs depends on the “closeness” to the content. Whereas in cases of solely transmitting services the risk of liability for illegal information is remote and the duty of ISPs is limited to a take-down, content, host and link providers (in cases of moder- ated newsgroups) can become liable if the information made available is not controlled.

Internet Service Providers Liability in Spain

The article focuses on the current situation of Spanish case law on ISP liability. It starts by presenting the more salient peculiarities of the Spanish transposition of the safe harbours laid down in the E-Commerce Directive. These peculiarities relate to the knowledge requirement of the hosting safe harbour, and to the safe harbour for information location tools. The article then provides an overview of the cases decided so far with regard to each of the safe harbours. Very few cases have dealt with the mere conduit and the caching safe harbours, though the latter was discussed in an interesting case involving Google’s cache. Most cases relate to hosting and linking safe harbours. With regard to hosting, the article focuses particularly on the two judgments handed down by the Supreme Court that hold an open interpretation of actual knowledge, an issue where courts had so far been split. Cases involving the linking safe harbour have mainly dealt with websites offering P2P download links. Accordingly, the article explores the legal actions brought against these sites, which for the moment have been unsuccessful. The new legislative initiative to fight against digital piracy – the Sustainable Economy Bill – is also analyzed. After the conclusion, the article provides an Annex listing the cases that have dealt with ISP liability in Spain since the safe harbours scheme was transposed into Spanish law.

Liability for Copyright Infringements on the Internet: Host Providers (Content Providers) - The Geman Approach

Copyright infringements on the Internet affect all types of media which can be used online: films, computer games, audio books, music, software, etc. For example, according to German studies, 90% of all copyright violations affecting film works take place on the Internet. This storage space is made available to such infringers, as well as to others whose intentions are legal, by hosting providers. To what extent do hosting providers have a duty of care for their contribution to the copyright infringements of third parties, i.e. their users? What duties of care can be reasonably expected of hosting providers to prevent such infringements? These questions have been heavily debated in Germany, and German courts have developed extensive case law. This article seeks to examine these questions by assessing German jurisprudence against its EU law background.

Welcome to the Jungle: The Liability of Internet Intermediaries for Privacy Violations in Europe

In Europe, roughly three regimes apply to the liability of Internet intermediaries for privacy violations conducted by users through their network. These are: the e-Commerce Directive, which, under certain conditions, excludes them from liability; the Data Protection Directive, which imposes a number of duties and responsibilities on providers processing personal data; and the freedom of expression, contained inter alia in the ECHR, which, under certain conditions, grants Internet providers several privileges and freedoms. Each doctrine has its own field of application, but they also have partial overlap. In practice, this creates legal inequality and uncertainty, especially with regard to providers that host online platforms and process User Generated Content.