EUPillar BGH, 10.11.2009

Summary

The plaintiffs brought an action for an injunction because the defendant reported on his website about their condemnation by naming their first and last names. The court made a preliminary request before the CJEU concerning the questions [paragraph 24 CJEU judgment]: 1. Is the phrase “the place where the harmful event ... may occur” in Article 5 no. 3 Brussels I to be interpreted as meaning, in the event of (possible) infringements of the right to protection of personality by means of content on an internet website, that the person concerned may also bring an action for an injunction against the operator of the website, irrespective of the Member State in which the operator is established, in the courts of any Member State in which the website may be accessed, or does the jurisdiction of the courts of a Member State in which the operator of the website is not established require that there be a special connection between the contested content or the website and the State of the court seised (domestic connecting factor) going beyond technically possible accessibility? 2. If such a special domestic connecting factor is necessary: What are the criteria which determine that connection? Does it depend on whether the intention of the operator is that the contested website is specifically (also) targeted at the internet users in the State of the court seised or is it sufficient for the information which may be accessed on the website to have an objective connection to the State of the court seised, in the sense that in the circumstances of the individual case, in particular on the basis of the content of the website to which the applicant objects, a collision of conflicting interests – the applicant’s interest in respect for his right to protection of personality and the operator’s interest in the design of his website and in news reporting – may actually have occurred or may occur in the State of the court seised? Does the determination of the special domestic connecting factor depend upon the number of times the website to which the applicant objects has been accessed from the State of the court seised? The court answered the preliminary request in 2011 (C-509/09 - eDate) [paragraph 69] Article 5 no. 3 Brussels I must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an alleged infringement of personality rights by means of content placed online on an internet website, the person who considers that his rights have been infringed has the option of bringing an action for liability, in respect of all the damage caused, either before the courts of the Member State in which the publisher of that content is established or before the courts of the Member State in which the centre of his interests is based. That person may also, instead of an action for liability in respect of all the damage caused, bring his action before the courts of each Member State in the territory of which content placed online is or has been accessible. Those courts have jurisdiction only in respect of the damage caused in the territory of the Member State of the court seised.