umraniye escort pendik escort
maderba.com
implant
olabahis
canli poker siteleri meritslot oleybet giris adresi betgaranti
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
brazzers
sikis
bodrum escort
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

12.02.2021 EU law
After the Uber case and the Airbnb case … the Star Taxi App case: focus on the question of the qualification as “Information Society Service”

Articles - Societal and digital developments are reflected in the case law of the CJEU. For several years now, European judges resolve disputes relating to digital applications and the services they provide. On 3 December 2020, they handed down a judgment in a case concerning Star Taxi App. This blog analyses the Star Taxi App case law in the light of the Uber case law and the Airbnb case law. The three judgments have in common the question of the qualification of services as Information Society Services.  

Read more

05.01.2021 EU law
Uitwisseling van persoonsgegevens met het Verenigd Koninkrijk

Short Reads - Uit de Brexit deal volgt dat gedurende de eerste 4 maanden van 2021 de doorgifte van persoonsgegevens naar het Verenigd Koninkrijk (“VK”) nog op dezelfde manier mag plaatsvinden als voorheen. Maar alleen als het VK in deze periode de regels voor de bescherming van persoonsgegevens niet verandert. Deze periode van 4 maanden kan worden verlengd tot 6 maanden.

Read more