La giurisdizione in materia extracontrattuale nello spazio giudiziario europeo.

Articles 7 n. 2 of Regulation No 1215/2012 and 5 n. 3 of the Lugano Convention of 2007 regulate jurisdiction in cross-border non-contractual matters. Given the issues of interpretation concerning the jurisdictional criterion of the “place where the harmful event occurred” (so-called locus commissi delicti), the European Court of Justice: i) developed the ubiquity rule; ii) differently located the place of the event giving rise to the damage and the place where the damage occurred, depending on the type of tort; iii) specified the ubiquity rule with the rule of the initial event giving rise to the damage, the relevance of direct and nonconsequential damages, the mosaic principle and the principle of territoriality and iv) included a third jurisdictional criterion in online defamation and antitrust matters and derogated to the mosaic principle in national trade mark, antitrust and product liability matters. In light of such a variety of interpretations, this thesis considers to develop a uniform interpretation of the locus commissi delicti in cybertorts in order to confirm the sole principle of ubiquity by attributing jurisdiction to the court of the place of establishment of the wrongdoer and to the court of the place of the center of interest of the victim of the tort. This solution is also confirmed by Article 79, paragraph 2, of Regulation No 2016/679. Regarding cross-border collective actions, the thesis proposes to include in Article 7 n. 2 of Regulation No 1215/2012 the jurisdictional criterion of the “place where the majority of the harmful event occurred or may occur”, referring to both the place where the majority of the event giving rise to the damage occurred and to the place where the majority of the damage occurred. This thesis also considers the coordination between Article 7 n. 2 of Regulation No 1215/2012 and Articles 79, paragraph 2, of Regulation No 2016/679, 122, paragraph 2, lett. a) of Regulation No 2017/1001, 79, paragraph 3, lett. a) of Regulation No 6/2002 and 31 of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court.