Initiated by the European Commission, the first study published in this volume analyses the largely unresolved question as to how damage caused by artificial intelligence (AI) systems is allocated by the rules of tortious liability currently in force in the Member States of the European Union and in the United States, to examine whether - and if so, to what extent - national tort law regimes differ in that respect, and to identify possible gaps in the protection of injured parties. The second study offers guiding principles for safety and liability with regard to software, testing how the existing acquis needs to be adjusted in order to adequately cope with the risks posed by software and AI. The annex contains the final report of the New Technologies Formation of the Expert Group on Liability and New Technologies, assessing the extent to which existing liability schemes are adapted to the emerging market realities following the development of new digital technologies.

All European legal systems recognise a boundary between the domains of tort and contract. While there have been voices contending that this distinction is no longer valid or at least that there should be a unification of the two sets of rules in particular contexts, others claim that there is still a very important distinction to be maintained. In fact the boundary between the two areas is often blurred and whether it is drawn in one place or another varies from country to country, giving rise to the paradox that what is considered a matter of contractual liability in one legal system is governed exclusively by tort law in another.This volume explores how differences between tort and contract affect the foundations of liability, the nature and amount of the compensation, the extent of liability and whether defences and limitation periods corresponding to the distinct causes of action give rise to substantially different outcomes. It also analyses to what extent actions in tort and in contract exclude each other and, when this is the case, how their concurrence is organised. Lastly it devotes its attention to specific situations such as pre-contractual liability and the liability of professionals.

The topic is of particular interest for insurers as compensation for loss of housekeeping capacity is one of the main heads of damages awarded for personal injury. Naturally it also has considerable importance for accident victims. Yet it has received relatively little scholarly attention, at least from a comparative perspective. The aim of this study is to examine national approaches to the award of damages under the head of loss of housekeeping capacity, and to compare the levels of damages so awarded. The research will therefore address both the concepts employed in different national systems and, by means of practical case studies, the compensation actually paid in individual cases. The results of the research comprise ten country reports (Austria, England and Wales, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain and Switzerland) based on a Questionnaire (Part I: General Part and Doctrine, Part II: Concrete Assessment Examples) and a concluding Comparative Report. This project, "Loss of Housekeeping Capacity", was undertaken at the request of the Swiss Insurance Association.

The goal of this study is to provide a general overview and thorough analysis of how the European Court of Human Rights deals with tort law issues such as damage, causation, wrongfulness and fault, the protective purpose of rules, remedies and the reduction of damages when applying art 41 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). These issues have been examined on the basis of a comprehensive selection and detailed analysis of the Court's judgments and the results compared with different European legal systems (Austria, Belgium, England and Wales, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Romania, Scandinavia, Spain, Switzerland and Turkey), EC Tort Law and the Principles of European Tort Law. The introduction of art 41 (ex art 50) ECHR in 1950 as a compromise and the issues it raises now, the methodological approaches to the tort law of the ECHR, the perspectives of human rights and tort law and public international law as well as the question of whether the reparation awarded to victims of ECHR violations can be considered real 'just' satisfaction are addressed in five special reports (two of which are also available in German). Concluding remarks try to summarise the outcome.