LG Hamburg; 2016-07-07; 308 O 126/16
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:LGHH:2016:0707.308O126.16.0A
Date: 2016-07-07
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82016DE0707(52)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The owner of exclusive rights of exploitation of recording companies products for Germany for a specific radio play series (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) sought the issuance of a preliminary ruling obliging a subsidiary of PayPal domiciled in Luxembourg (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) to provide information about the contact details of an account owner.
The radio play series of the plaintiff had been offered on an internet platform as ‘Download-on-Demand’. The payment for the download was carried out through the service of the defendant. The plaintiff did not manage to find the owner of the internet platform.
Through its lawyers, the plaintiff sent the defendant a letter requesting that the defendant provide information about the name and the address of the recipient of the money, who was receiving the payments for the download of the radio play series through PayPal. This request was unsuccessful.
The application of the plaintiff was admissible and justified. It was possible to sue the defendant under Article 101(2(3) UrhG (1) due to the fact that it was a professional provider of services used by the operator of the internet platform who was conducting unlawful activities.
The Landgericht Hamburg (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) was the court having international jurisdiction under Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (2) as the offer to download was also directed to users in Hamburg and the harmful event had occurred in the district of this court.
The plaintiff had the exclusive rights under Article 85(1) 1 UrhG to make the record publicly available. The infringement of the respective rights by the above download offer was evident. Therefore, it is possible to assert the claim of the plaintiff also in the form of a preliminary judgment Article 101(7) UrhG.
The right to be provided with information under Article 101(2) UrhG was not prevented by any possible right of the defendant to refuse to testify. In particular with respect to the domicile of the defendant in Luxembourg, no right to refuse to testify existed under Article 383(1)(6) ZPO (3) in connection with the applicable laws of Luxembourg on the grounds of an employee of the plaintiff violating the duty of non-disclosure.
The Court of Instance ordered the defendant to provide information about the name and the address of the account owner.
(1) Urheberrechtsgesetz (Act on Copyright and Related Rights).
(2) 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.
(3) Zivilprozessordnung (Code of Civil Procedure).