Short Reads

Courts of a Member State where a work is accessible online have jurisdiction to hear case

Courts of a Member State where a work is accessible online have jurisdiction to hear case

Courts of a Member State where a work is accessible online have jurisdiction to hear case

30.04.2015

On 22 January 2015 the European Court of Justice (ECJ), in its judgment C-441/13, held that a court of a Member State where a work is accessible online does have jurisdiction to hear the case if the damage has occurred or might occur in that Member State.

Article 2 of Regulation 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (“Regulation 44/2001”) stipulates that persons domiciled in a Member State shall be sued in the courts of that Member State. By way of exception, and hence to be interpreted restrictively, Article 5(3) of this Regulation states that the courts of the place where the harmful event occurred or might occur can be seized in matters relating to tort, delict, or quasi-delict.

In the case at stake, a German-based company hadpublished on its website pictures that were taken by an Austrian photographer and had done so without this
photographer’s consent and without any recognition of authorship. The photographer subsequently sued the company before the Austrian courts. The company (defendant) argued that the Austrian courts lacked jurisdiction because the website was not directed at Austria and that the mere fact that the website can be accessed from Austria is insufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Austrian courts.

The ECJ confirmed, however, that in accordance with Article 5(3) of Regulation 44/2001, the Austrian courts could be seized on the basis of the place where the alleged damage occurred. As a matter of fact, the likelihood of damage occurring in a particular Member State is subject to the condition that the right whose infringement is alleged is protected in that Member State.

The ECJ further confirms that unlike Article 15(1) of Regulation 44/2001, Article 5(3) does not require that the activity concerned be directed to the Member State in which the court seized is situated. In the case at issue, the occurrence of damage and/or the likelihood of its occurrence arise from the accessibility in the Member State of the photographs to which the rights relied on retain.
 

This case can be found on: http://curia.europa.eu

 

Click here for a PDF version of the 51st edition of our ICT Law Newsletter.

 

 

Team

Related news

27.07.2020 NL law
Outsourcing laws and Regulation in the Netherlands – 2020

Articles - Are there any additional legal or regulatory requirements for outsourcing transactions undertaken by government or public sector bodies? What formalities are required to transfer, lease or license assets on an outsourcing transaction? Or, What are the most material legal or regulatory requirements and issues concerning data security and data protection that may arise on an outsourcing transaction?

Read more

29.07.2020 NL law
Over temperaturen ten tijde van corona

Articles - Met haar standpunt ten aanzien van het meten van temperaturen van werknemers, geeft de Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens (AP) verduidelijking over de reikwijdte van haar toezicht. Deze nuancering houdt in dat, als er geen sprake is van verwerking van persoonsgegevens, de AVG niet geldt en de AP dus niet handhavend kan optreden.

Read more

03.07.2020 NL law
E-book NOW-2: Second Temporary Emergency Bridging Measure Work Retention

Articles - On 17 March 2020, the Dutch cabinet announced the first emergency package of support measures to alleviate the economic consequences of the corona crisis. This emergency package inter alia comprised the First Temporary Emergency Bridging Measure for the purpose of Work Retention (“NOW-1”) and the Temporary Bridging Measure for Self-Employed Persons (“Tozo-1”).

Read more