Brussels, 25/10/2011 (Agence Europe) - Victims of infringements of personality rights (defamation or other) by means of the internet may bring actions before the courts of the member state in which they reside in respect of all of the damage caused. However, the operator of an internet website covered by the e-commerce directive cannot be made subject, in that state, to stricter requirements than those provided for by the law of the member state in which it is established.
With this judgment, delivered on Tuesday 25 October (Cases C-509/09 and C-161/10), the Court of Justice of the EU responded to the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, Germany) and the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris (Paris Regional Court, France) which asked it to interpret EU law (Regulation 44/2001 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters and Directive 2000/31/EC on electronic commerce) on the court which has jurisdiction and the extent of their powers in cases of infringement of personality rights by virtue of online content on an internet site. More specifically, the two courts wanted to know if the principles which apply in similar cases in the written newspaper articles, distributed in several member states are applicable also to infringements of personality rights committed by means of content placed online on an internet website.
The Court held, firstly, that the two forms of distribution differ in that, unlike the regional distribution of printed matter, internet content can be consulted instantly by an indefinite number of internet users world-wide. Thus, universal distribution is liable to increase the seriousness of the infringements of personality rights and also makes it extremely difficult to locate the places in which the damage resulting from those infringements has occurred. The Court decided, therefore, that the court best placed to assess the impact which material placed online is the one where the victim has his/her centre of interests, which usually corresponds to the place of his/her habitual residence. The Court pointed out, however, that, in place of an action for liability in respect of all of the damage, the victim may always bring an action before the courts of each member state in the territory of which the online content is or has been accessible. In that case, in the same way as damage caused by printed matter, those courts have jurisdiction to deal with cases only in relation to damage which occurred within the territory of the state in which they are situated. Similarly, the person whose rights have been infringed may also bring an action, in respect of all of the damage caused, before the courts of the member state in which the publisher of the online content is established.
Finally, in interpreting the e-commerce directive, the Court ruled that the principle of the freedom to provide services precludes, in principle, the provider of an electronic commerce service from being made subject, in the host member state, to stricter requirements than those provided for by the law of the member state in which that service provider is established. (FG/transl.rt)