A person who feels aggrieved by the dissemination of derogatory statements on the Internet by an entity located in a Member State other than his or her own may seek compensation for the damage in the territory of his or her own Member State.
This was the decision of the EU Court of Justice on 21 December in a case (C-251/20) involving Gtflix Tv, a company based in the Czech Republic that produces and distributes adult audiovisual content, and another adult content professional based in Hungary who allegedly made disparaging remarks against Gtflix Tv on the Internet.
Gtflix Tv had unsuccessfully sued the Hungarian producer before French courts in 2017 and 2018 to obtain the removal of these comments and compensation for the damage suffered.
But these courts had declared themselves incompetent. Brought before the court by Gtflix Tv, the French Court of Cassation also ruled that, as the complainant was established in the Czech Republic, the French courts were not competent to request the deletion of these messages.
However, it wished to ask the Court of Justice whether a person who considers that his rights have been infringed by the dissemination of disparaging statements on the Internet, acting both for the purpose of rectifying the data and deleting the content and for compensation for non-material and economic damage, may claim, before the courts of each Member State in whose territory those statements posted online are or were accessible, compensation for the damage caused in the territory of that Member State, or whether he must bring that claim for compensation before the court having jurisdiction to order the rectification of the data and the deletion of the disparaging statements.
In particular, it asked for an interpretation of the special jurisdiction rule in Article 7 of Regulation 1215/2012 on the jurisdictions “of the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur”.
The Court held that the complainant was entitled to seek compensation in each Member State in which the statements are or were accessible for the damage caused, even if those courts do not have jurisdiction over the request for rectification or deletion.
It recalled that this rule “of the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur” refers both to the place of the causal event and the place where the damage materialises, with each of the two places being likely, depending on the circumstances, to provide a particularly useful indication as regards evidence and the organisation of the trial.
In the case of an infringement of personal rights via an Internet site, the person who considers himself to be injured thus has the option of bringing an action for damages either before the courts of the place of establishment of the issuer of this content as the place of the causal event, or before the courts of the State in which the centre of his interests is located for the materialisation of the damage.
Link to the judgment: https://bit.ly/3mp6c5M (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)