# C_2011370EN.01000902.xml

| 17.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 370/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 370/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 October 2011 (references for preliminary rulings from the Bundesgerichtshof, Tribunal de grande instance de Paris — Germany, France) — eDate Advertising GmbH v X, Olivier Martinez, Robert Martinez v MGN Limited

(Joined Cases C-509/09 and C-161/10) (1)

1

(Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Jurisdiction ‘in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ - Directive 2000/31/EC - Publication of information on the internet - Adverse effect on personality rights - Place where the harmful event occurred or may occur - Law applicable to information society services)

2011/C 370/13

Languages of the cases: German and French

Referring courts

Referring courts

Bundesgerichtshof, Tribunal de grande instance de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: eDate Advertising GmbH, Olivier Martinez, Robert Martinez

Applicants:

Defendants: X, MGN Limited

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

(C-509/09)

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) and of Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1) — Determining which court has jurisdiction and which law applies in the case of an action brought in relation to an infringement of the right to protection of personality which may have been committed by publication of information on the internet — Criteria to be used for determining ‘the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’

(C-161/10)

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de grande instance de Paris — Interpretation of Articles 2 and 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Court with jurisdiction to hear an action for infringement of the right to privacy and the right of personal portrayal following the placing on-line of information and photographs on an internet site disseminated from a server housed in the territory of a Member State other that that in which the applicant is domiciled — Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred — Relevance, in order to determine that place, of the number of connections to the internet page at issue effected from the State in which the applicant is domiciled, the nationality of the applicant and, where appropriate, the language in which the information at issue was disseminated

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an alleged infringement of personality rights by means of content placed online on an internet website, the person who considers that his rights have been infringed has the option of bringing an action for liability, in respect of all the damage caused, either before the courts of the Member State in which the publisher of that content is established or before the courts of the Member State in which the centre of his interests is based. That person may also, instead of an action for liability in respect of all the damage caused, bring his action before the courts of each Member State in the territory of which content placed online is or has been accessible. Those courts have jurisdiction only in respect of the damage caused in the territory of the Member State of the court seised. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an alleged infringement of personality rights by means of content placed online on an internet website, the person who considers that his rights have been infringed has the option of bringing an action for liability, in respect of all the damage caused, either before the courts of the Member State in which the publisher of that content is established or before the courts of the Member State in which the centre of his interests is based. That person may also, instead of an action for liability in respect of all the damage caused, bring his action before the courts of each Member State in the territory of which content placed online is or has been accessible. Those courts have jurisdiction only in respect of the damage caused in the territory of the Member State of the court seised.

| 2. | Article 3 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’), must be interpreted as not requiring transposition in the form of a specific conflict-of-laws rule. Nevertheless, in relation to the coordinated field, Member States must ensure that, subject to the derogations authorised in accordance with the conditions set out in Article 3(4) of Directive 2000/31, the provider of an electronic commerce service is not made subject to stricter requirements than those provided for by the substantive law applicable in the Member State in which that service provider is established. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 3 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’), must be interpreted as not requiring transposition in the form of a specific conflict-of-laws rule. Nevertheless, in relation to the coordinated field, Member States must ensure that, subject to the derogations authorised in accordance with the conditions set out in Article 3(4) of Directive 2000/31, the provider of an electronic commerce service is not made subject to stricter requirements than those provided for by the substantive law applicable in the Member State in which that service provider is established.

---

(1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.

1

OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.

---