EUPillar Fédération française de tennis v. Société de droit anglais Ladbrokes Betting and Gaming Ltd

Summary

The claimant is a sports federation with a public mission to develop and democratise physical and sports activities, more precisely in the domain of tennis. It organises and promotes the international championship of Roland Garros and the ATP Master Series in Paris. The defendant organises online bets on tennis matches such as Roland Garros. Its website is accessible in Belgium. The claimant believes that the market for online bets tarnishes the image and reputation of its championship, because it could lead to fraudulent practices such as influencing the outcome of certain games. The claimant therefore asks the court to recognise its legitimate interests and rights, and prohibit the offer of these online bets in Belgium, and order the defendant to pay back the sums it already collected from bets on the Roland Garros and ATP Master Series championships. The defendant contests the international jurisdiction of the Belgian courts. The Court considers that the technique of the internet has a global dimension and could therefore lead to universal jurisdiction – this possible outcome must be handled in the light of the objectives of Brussels I, which are to establish legal certainty, to render the rules of jurisdiction highly predictable for a reasonably well informed defendant, to limit the number of jurisdictional bases, to diminish the risks of forum shopping, and to ensure that there are no irreconcilable decisions. It is not contested that the substance of the case is related to a matter relating to tort within the meaning of Art. 5(3), since the claimant holds the defendant liable on the basis of Art. 1382 Civil Code. The ECJ has decided that the place where the harmful event occurred must be understood as being intended to cover both the place where the damage occurred and the place of the event giving rise to it. There is no doubt that that place of the event giving rise to the damage is the place where the website is establishment, ie the place where the site is stored, in this case the United Kingdom. The place where the damage occurred is the place where the harmful event produced its effects against the victim and engaged the liability of the perpetrator. In Shevill, in spite of the inclusion of Art. 5 among the “special” heads of jurisdiction, the ECJ reasoned in terms of “general jurisdiction” by conferring jurisdiction to “the courts of each Contracting State in which the publication was distributed”. Since January 2008 it was possible to place bets, from Belgium, on the defendant’s website, on the outcome of Roland Garros 2008. The defendant was actively present on the Belgian market. There is no need to take into account the actual number of bets placed. If a publication allows to found international jurisdiction, the same goes for the offer of a service and the effects of that service even through an online channel. Jurisdiction is based on the (presumed) consequences of the harmful consequences of contents broadcasted on the internet. The manager of a website should be aware of the fact that he is globally accessible – it is precisely this quality which determines the choice of the internet as a medium to present its services. Also: - English is widely used on the internet and renders the site perfectly accessible to the Belgian market; - contrary to some other countries, the defendant’s services are not subject to any limits in Belgium; - the defendant’s website also allows to place bets on Belgian football matches, which shows that the defendant targeted the Belgian market; - the alleged damage, ie the harm to Roland Garros’ reputation, takes place in Belgium where the championship is well known. The Belgian courts have jurisdiction without there being a need to rely on Art. 31 Brussels I. SHORT CRITIQUE - It is a pity that the court refers to art. 1382 Civil Code instead of adopting an autonomous interpretation of art. 5(3) Brussels I. - The court takes a novel approach to jurisdiction on the internet.