Keywords
International jurisdiction
Digital era
Economic power
Sovereignty
Access to justice
How to Cite
Abstract
This article examines the decision of the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court in Declaratory Action of Constitutionality No. 51 and its impact on the regulation of the business conduct of major digital platforms, by imposing limits on their economic freedom of action. The judgment recognised that Brazilian courts may directly order platforms to provide data connected to the country, even when stored abroad, rejecting the thesis of the economic and technological immunity of big techs and considering international cooperation as an alternative path, though not the exclusive one. It is concluded that the Brazilian experience contributes to strengthening democratic sovereignty in the Digital Era, ensures access to justice, prevents the total business arbitrariness in the conduct of the platforms’ economic activity, and provides a relevant parameter for the construction of a global digital constitutionalism.
References
ABADE, Denise Neves. Direitos Fundamentais na Cooperação Jurídica Internacional. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2013.
ABREU, Jacqueline de Souza. “Jurisdictional battles for digital evidence, MLAT reform, and the Brazilian experience. Conflitos de jurisdição por provas digitais, reforma da cooperação judiciária internacional, e a experiência brasileira”. Revista de Informação Legislativa, Brasília, vol. 55, nº 220, 2018. p. 233-257.
BALTAR, Leandro. “El control de competencia internacional desde el derecho internacional privado argentino”. Revista de la Secretaría del Tribunal Permanente de Revisión, año 7, n.º 14, agosto 2019, p. 222-224.
BERMAN, Paul Schiff. “Jurisdictional Pluralism”. In: ALLEN, Stephen; COSTELOOE, Daniel; FITZMAURICE, Malgosia; GRAGL, Paul; GUNTRIP, Edward. (eds.). The Oxford handbook of jurisdiction in international law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019, pp. 121-160.
BRASIL. SUPREMO TRIBUNAL FEDERAL (Pleno). Acción Declaratoria de Constitucionalidad n.º 51, sentencia de 23 de febrero de 2023. Disponible en: <https://portal.stf.jus.br/processos/detalhe.asp?incidente=5320379>
CARVALHO RAMOS, André. Curso de Direito Internacional Privado. 4ª ed., São Paulo: Saraivajur, 2025.
CORTE INTERAMERICANA DE DERECHOS HUMANOS. Velásquez Rodríguez vs. Honduras. Sentencia de 29 de julio de 1988 (Fondo). Disponible en: <https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_04_por.pdf>
CORTE INTERAMERICANA DE DERECHOS HUMANOS. Favela Nova Brasília vs. Brasil. Sentencia de 16 de febrero de 2017 (Excepciones preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas). Disponible en: <https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_333_por.pdf>
CORTE INTERAMERICANA DE DERECHOS HUMANOS. González y otras (“Campo Algodonero”) vs. México. Sentencia de 16 de noviembre de 2009 (Excepción preliminar, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas). Disponible en:<https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_205_esp.pdf>
HAWKINS, Eric C. “General jurisdiction and internet contacts: what role, if any, should the zippo sliding scale test play in the analysis”. Fordham Law Review, v. 74, 2006, pp. 2371-2423.
LOWE, Vaughan. “Jurisdiction”. In: EVANS, Malcolm D. (Org.). International law. Oxford University Press: New York, 2003, pp. 329-355.
MENDES, Gilmar Ferreira; FERNANDES, Victor Oliveira. “Constitucionalismo digital e jurisdição constitucional: uma agenda de pesquisa para o caso brasileiro”. Revista Brasileira de Direito, Passo Fundo, vol. 16, nº 1, jan-abril, 2020, pp. 1-33.
RYNGAERT, Cedric. Jurisdiction in International Law. 2ª ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
TIBURCIO, Carmen; ALBUQUERQUE, Felipe. “Territorialidade, jurisdição e Internet: alguns aspectos de direito internacional privado”. Revista Eletrônica de Direito Processual, Rio de Janeiro, v. 24, n. 3, 2023, pp. 34-57.
TRIBUNAL EUROPEO DE DERECHOS HUMANOS. Golder vs. Reino Unido. Sentencia de 21 de febrero de 1975. Disponible en: <https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57496>
TRIBUNAL EUROPEO DE DERECHOS HUMANOS. Sunday Times vs. Reino Unido. Sentencia de 26 de abril de 1979. Disponible en:<https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57708>
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2025 André de Carvalho Ramos, Denise Neves Abade