EAPIL YRN 5th Research Project: Updates and Intermediate Meeting – Report
The authors of this post are Mathilde Codazzi (Paris-Panthéon-Assas University), Paul Eichmüller (University of Vienna) and Marco Pasqua (PhD, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart of Milan), co-Chairs of the EAPIL Young Research Network.
As already noted on this blog, the 5th Research Project of the EAPIL Young Research Network focuses on the applicable law to non-contractual obligations arising out of violations of privacy and rights relating to personality, including defamation. These matters were and are expressly excluded from the scope of the Rome II Regulation by Article 1(2)(g), a choice that has left them outside the harmonised framework of EU private international law and subject instead to diverse national solutions. This exclusion has recently regained prominence in the European Commission’s 2025 Report on the application of Rome II, which highlights persistent legal fragmentation, growing legal uncertainty and the increasing relevance of privacy-related torts in the digital environment, thereby reinforcing the need for renewed comparative analysis and reflection on possible future harmonisation.
Against this background, the project aims to map and critically assess the existing national rules on the law applicable to privacy and personality rights, with particular attention to cross-border online infringements, forum shopping risks and the interaction with fundamental rights such as freedom of expression and data protection. By identifying convergences and divergences among domestic approaches, the project seeks to contribute to ongoing academic and policy debates on whether, and how, conflict-of-laws rules in this sensitive area could be harmonised at EU and/or international level.
The project brings together a wide group of national rapporteurs from across Europe. Specifically, for EU Member States, rapporteurs include Fabian Pollitzer (University of Vienna) for Austria; Cedric Vanleenhove (Ghent University) and Rob Rooman (KU Leuven) for Belgium; Ilia Lassin (Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”) for Bulgaria; Jura Golub (Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek) for Croatia; Nicolas Kyriakides (University of Nicosia), Yiolanti Maou (University of Nicosia) and Nicoletta Zacharopoulos (Harris Kyriakides Law Firm) for Cyprus; Elisa Arietti (Charles University in Prague) and David Linek (Charles University in Prague) for Czech Republic; Benjamin Saunier (Panthéon-Sorbonne University) for France; Anna Pauline Schweinbach (Universidad de Sevilla) for Germany; Georgios Kotlidas (Attorney-at-Law/“Rythmisis” Greek Institute for AI Law) for Greece; Ferenc Szilágyi (Pázmány Péter Catholic University) for Hungary; Ilaria Aquironi (University of Ferrara) for Italy; Aleksandrs Fillers (Riga Graduate School of Law) for Latvia; Agnė Kisieliausaitė (Ellex – Law Firm), Dominykas Kirsis (Ellex – Law Firm) and Titas Burneckas (Ellex – Law Firm) for Lithuania; Birgit van Houtert (Maastricht University) for the Netherlands; Edyta Figura-Góralczyk (Cracow University of Economics & Jagiellonian University in Cracow) and Wojciech Wydmański (Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw) for Poland; Alina Oprea (Babeș-Bolyai University of Cluj-Napoca) for Romania; Dominika Moravcová (University of Trnava) for Slovakia; María Asunción Cebrián Salvat (University of Murcia) and Blas Piñar Guzmán (Belagua Abogados) for Spain. The project also includes rapporteurs from European non-EU States, including Armela Maxhelaku (University of Tirana) for Albania; Luisa Reininghaus (University of Geneva) and Cyrill Chevalley (University of Lausanne) for Switzerland; Esra Tekin (Dicle University) and Ece Uyanık (Kadir Has University) for Turkey; Ivan Sukhorukov (Mykolas Romeris University) for Ukraine; Ross Pey (University of Western Ontario) for the United Kingdom.
The first drafts of the national reports were discussed at an online intermediate meeting held in December 2025, which marked an important milestone in the project’s development. The meeting allowed the co-Chairs to present the initial comparative findings emerging from the national reports over questionnaires and to engage in a structured exchange with the rapporteurs on all the core issues addressed by the research, spanning both the general architecture of national conflict-of-laws systems and the detailed operation of the applicable rules in practice.
Discussions covered, first, the placement and structure of the relevant conflict rules, including whether they are contained in national PIL acts, dispersed across substantive legislation or primarily developed through case law, as well as the existence (or absence) of specific conflict rules for privacy and personality rights as opposed to the application of general tort rules. Particular attention was devoted to whether national systems rely on a single conflict rule or multiple rules depending on the rights concerned, the remedies sought or the status of the injured party, including the treatment of personality rights of legal persons.
Secondly, the meeting addressed the content and functioning of the applicable conflict rules, with exchanges on the connecting factors employed (such as the place of damage or of the event giving rise to the damage), their interpretation in national case law and the extent to which CJEU jurisprudence influences domestic approaches. The discussion also focused on issues of foreseeability, the localisation of online infringements, the possible relevance of foreign standards of conduct and the scope of the applicable law.
Further debate concerned freedom of choice and its limits in this field, safeguards against abusive choice-of-law agreements, the role of overriding mandatory provisions and public policy and the interaction between conflict-of-laws rules and fundamental rights. The rapporteurs also exchanged views on the relationship between applicable law and jurisdiction, notably in the context of the mosaic approach under Brussels I bis Regulation, as well as on the influence of EU substantive law on the operation of national private international law rules.
On the basis of these discussions, the co-Chairs are currently preparing comparative tables mapping national solutions across the different dimensions addressed by the questionnaire. The preliminary findings already confirm a highly fragmented legal landscape, both within the EU and beyond, especially as regards the existence and scope of specific conflict rules, the treatment of online infringements and the balance between privacy, personality rights and freedom of expression. The December meeting also served to outline the next steps of the project, including the finalisation of the national reports, the drafting of the comparative analysis and the forthcoming publication of the research outcomes.
The project is being conducted in close dialogue with the European Commission and will culminate in a Final Conference, planned for the afternoon of 26 March 2026 at the University of Luxembourg. Participation in the Final Conference is open and warmly welcome; those wishing to attend are kindly invited to signal their interest by writing to youngresearch@eapil.org.