Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2014:2212
Date: 2014-09-11
Language of the case: German
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Austria

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 22 January 2015 1. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict — Place where the damage occurred and place of the causal event (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 5(3)) 2. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict — Alleged infringement of copyright and rights related to copyright arising from the uploading onto an internet site of protected photographs — Jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State of the place where the damage occurred — Scope (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 5(3)) 1. The expression ‘place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’ in Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters is intended to cover both the place where the damage occurred and the place of the event giving rise to it, so that the defendant may be sued, at the option of the applicant, in the courts for either of those places. Since identification of one of the linking factors thus establishes the jurisdiction of the court objectively best placed to determine whether the elements establishing the liability of the person sued are present, it follows that only the court in whose jurisdiction the relevant linking factor is situated may validly be seised. (see paras 18, 20) 2. Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 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 allegation of infringement of copyright and rights related to copyright guaranteed by the Member State of the court seised, that court has jurisdiction, on the basis of the place where the damage occurred, to hear an action for damages in respect of an infringement of those rights resulting from the placing of protected photographs online on a website accessible in its territorial jurisdiction. On the basis of the principle of territoriality, that court has jurisdiction only to rule on the damage caused in the Member State within which the court is situated. The occurrence of damage and/or the likelihood of its occurrence arise from the accessibility in the Member State of the referring court, via the website, of the photographs to which copyright and rights related to copyright pertain. In that respect, it is irrelevant that the website is not directed at the Member State in which the court seised is situated. (see paras 33, 34, 36, 38, operative part)