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

07.12.2018 BE law
GDPR-roundtable on practical questions encountered during implementation

Roundtable - After the success of the roundtable sessions we held before the GDPR took effect (in May this year), our TMT team is enthusiastic about the session of 7 December, focusing on the lessons we have learned from working on multiple GDPR-matters in the past year. We will tackle some practical questions that we have encountered and that are not or cannot be readily answered by the new regulation.

Read more

07.12.2018 BE law
Virtual Currency Regulation Law Review

Articles - The first edition of the Virtual Currency Regulation Law Review is intended to provide a practical, business-focused analysis of recent legal and regulatory changes and developments, and of their effects, and to look forward at expected trends in the area of virtual currencies on a country-by-country basis.

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring