Prim'Awla tal-Qorti Civili; 2019-06-19; Bet-at-home.com Entertainment Limited (C35055) Vs. Vectra S.A. (KRS 0000089460); 600/2017
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:MT:CIVP:2019:121120
Date: 2019-06-19
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Malta

82019MT0619(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a question of international jurisdiction of courts in a case of damage caused by an internet provider restricting access to a website in a Member State. This case was held at the Qorti tal-Appell (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’)
A Maltese company (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) was functioning as an online gambling operator authorized by the Malta Gaming Authority. A Polish company (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) providing internet access services in Poland blocked the access to the plaintiff’s website.
Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) which sets the jurisdiction in cases of a harmful event caused by a tort, delict, or quasi-delict was considered. The Court of First Instance presented the whole line of the Court of Justice of the European Union case law. In Case C-21/76 (2), the CJEU stated that Article 5(3) of the Brussels Convention (3), which used the same formulation as Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), must be interpreted to cover both the place where the damage occurred and the place of the event giving rise to it. In Case C-364/93 (4), CJEU restricted the interpretation stating that these terms cannot be construed so extensively as to encompass any place where the adverse consequences can be felt which has already caused damage arising elsewhere. It was in this case, where the CJEU introduced the term ‘initial damage‘. Furthermore, the Court of First Instance cited Case C-509/09 (5) in which the CJEU considered the international jurisdiction in the case of a publisher of a defamatory publication. In this case, the CJEU introduced a rule under which a victim may bring an action for damages against a publisher before the courts of a place where a defamatory publication was established, or in a place of domicile of a publisher. In these jurisdictions, it may ask for full damages caused by the defamatory publication. It may, however, bring the case also in any other jurisdiction, while the damages are limited in this case solely to the damage caused in this State.
The Court of First Instance stated that by blocking and redirecting access to the website damage was caused to the plaintiff. It, therefore, originated in Poland, but since the plaintiff claimed that its harmful direct effect was recorded and suffered only in Malta, the Court of First Instance relied on the case-law of CJEU and stated that Maltese courts have jurisdiction.
(1) Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
(2) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 30 November 1976, Handelskwekerij G. J. Bier BV v Mines de potasse d'Alsace SA, C-21/76, ECLI:EU:C:1976:147.
(3) Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
(4) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 September 1995, Antonio Marinari v Lloyds Bank plc and Zubaidi Trading Company, C-364/93, ECLI:EU:C:1995:289.
(5) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 25 October 2011, eDate Advertising GmbH and Others v X and Société MGN LIMITED, C-509/09, ECLI:EU:C:2011:685.