Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht 
Regensburg (Regional Court, Regensburg) lodged on 11 
June 2010 — Cornelia Buschmann v Cornelius de Visser  
(Case C-292/10)  
(2010/C 346/38)  
Language of the case: German  
Referring court  
Landgericht Regensburg  
Parties to the main proceedings  
Applicant:  Cornelia Buschmann  
Defendant:  Cornelius de Visser  
Questions referred  
(a) Does the first half-sentence of the first subparagraph of 
Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union as amended 
by the Treaty of Lisbon (‘TEU’), in conjunction with the first 
sentence of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 
(‘CEU’), or other European legislation preclude ‘service by 
public notice’ under national law (pursuant to Paragraphs 
185 to 188 of the German Zivilprozessordnung (Code of 
Civil Procedure), through the posting for one month of the 
notification of the service on the notice board of the court 
ordering the notification) if the opponent in a civil action 
(in its very early stages) gives an address in the territory of 
the European Union (‘Union territory’) on his website, but 
service is not possible because the defendant’s whereabouts 
in the Union territory are not known and it cannot 
otherwise be established where he is currently residing?  
(b) If the answer to Question 2(a) is in the affirmative:  
Must the national court refuse, in accordance with past case- 
law of the Court (most recently Case C-341/06 …), to apply 
national rules permitting service by public notice even if 
national law grants such power of rejection only to the 
(German) Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional 
Court)?  
and 
Should the applicant communicate to the court a new 
address at which a further attempt can be made to serve 
the application on the defendant to enable her to assert her 
rights, since under national law the trial could not be 
conducted without service by public notice and without 
knowledge of the defendant’s whereabouts?  
(c) If the answer to Question 2(a) is in the negative: Is, in the 
present case, a default judgment pursuant to Paragraph 331 of the Zivilprozessordnung, that is an enforcement order for 
uncontested claims within the meaning of Regulation (EC) 
No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council creating a European Enforcement Order for uncon ­
tested claims (‘Regulation No 805/2004’), precluded by 
Article 26(2) 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 (‘Regulation No 44/2001’), in so far as an order is 
sought for the payment of compensation for pain and 
suffering amounting to at least EUR 20 000,00 plus 
interest and legal costs of EUR 1 419,19 plus interest?  
The following questions are referred subject to the condition 
that it is possible for the applicant to continue the action 
in accordance with the Court’s answers to Questions 
2(a) to 2(c):  
(d) Having regard to Article 4(1) and Article 5(3) of Regulation 
No 44/2001, is that Regulation also applicable in cases in 
which the whereabouts of the defendant in a civil action, 
who has been sued for an injunction, information and 
compensation for pain and suffering because of the 
operation of a website, who is (presumed to be) a Union 
citizen within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 
9 TEU, are unknown, it therefore being conceivable, but by 
no means certain, that he is currently residing outside the 
Union territory and also outside the residual treaty area 
governed by the Convention on jurisdiction and the 
enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial 
matters, done at Lugano on 16 September 1988 (‘Lugano 
Convention’), and the precise location of the server on 
which the website is stored is also unknown, although it 
seems logical to assume that it is in the Union territory?  
(e) If Regulation No 44/2001 is applicable in this case, is the 
phrase ‘the place where the harmful event … may occur’ in 
Article 5(3) of that Regulation to be interpreted as meaning, 
in the event of (possible) infringements of personality by 
means of content on an Internet website,  
that the person concerned (‘applicant’) may also bring an 
action for an injunction, for information and for compen ­
sation for pain and suffering against the operator of the 
website (‘defendant’), irrespective of where the defendant is 
established (in or outside the Union territory), in the courts 
of any Member State in which the website may be accessed,  
or 
is it necessary, in order for the courts of a Member State in 
which the defendant is not established or there are no 
indications that he is resident to have jurisdiction, that 
there be a special connection between the contested 
content of the website and the State of the court seised 
(domestic connecting factor) going beyond technically 
possible accessibility?EN 18.12.2010 Official Journal of the European Union C 346/23
(f) If such a special domestic connecting factor is necessary: 
What are the criteria which determine that connection?  
Does it depend on whether the intention of the operator is 
that the contested website is specifically (also) targeted at 
Internet users in the State of the court seised or is it 
sufficient for the information which may be accessed on 
the website to have an objective connection to the State 
of the court seised, in the sense that in the circumstances 
of the individual case, in particular on the basis of the 
content of the website to which the applicant objects, a 
collision of conflicting interests — the applicant’s interest 
in respect of her right to protection of personality and the 
operator’s interest in the design of his website — may 
actually have occurred or may occur in the State of the 
court seised or has occurred, in that one or more 
acquaintances of the person whose right to protection of 
personality has been infringed have taken note of the 
content of the website?  
(g) Does the determination of the special domestic connecting 
factor depend upon the number of times the website to 
which the applicant objects has been accessed from the 
State of the court seised?  
(h) If the referring court has jurisdiction for the action 
according to the above questions: Do the legal principles 
laid down in the Court’s judgment in Case C-68/93 … also 
apply in the case described above?  
(i) If no special domestic connecting factor is required in order 
to make a positive finding on jurisdiction, or if it is 
sufficient for the presumption of such a special domestic 
connecting factor that the information to which the 
applicant objects has an objective connection to the State 
of the court seised, in the sense that in the circumstances of 
the individual case, in particular on the basis of the content 
of the website to which the applicant objects, a collision of 
conflicting interests may actually have occurred or may 
occur in the State of the court seised or has occurred, in 
that one of more acquaintances of the person whose right 
to protection of personality has been infringed have taken 
note of the content of the website, and the existence of a 
special domestic connecting factor may be presumed 
without requiring a finding as to a minimum number of 
times the website to which the applicant objects has been 
accessed from the State of the court seised, or Regulation 
No 44/2001 is in no way applicable to the present case:  
Must 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 
(‘Directive on electronic commerce’) be interpreted as 
meaning that those provisions should be attributed with a 
conflict-of-laws character in the sense that for the field of 
private law also they require the exclusive application of the 
law applicable in the country of origin, to the exclusion of 
national conflict-of-law rules,  
Or 
do those provisions operate as a corrective at a substantive 
law level, by means of which the substantive law outcome 
under the law declared to be applicable pursuant to the 
national conflict-of-law rules is altered and adjusted to the 
requirements of the country of origin?  (j) In the event that Article 3(1) and (2) of the Directive on 
electronic commerce have a conflict-of-laws character:  
Do those provisions merely require the exclusive application 
of the substantive law applicable in the country of origin or 
also the application of the conflict-of-law rules applicable 
there, with the consequence that a renvoi under the law of 
the country of origin to the law of the target State remains 
possible?  
(k) In the event that Article 3(1) and (2) of the Directive on 
electronic commerce have a conflict-of-laws character:  
Must the designation of the place of establishment of the 
service provider be geared to his (presumed) current 
whereabouts, his whereabouts when the publication of the 
photographs of the applicant first began or the (presumed) 
location of the server on which the website is stored?  
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale 
Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione 
Terza (Italy) lodged on 5 July 2010 — Enipower Spa v 
Autorità per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas  
(Case C-328/10)  
(2010/C 346/39)  
Language of the case: Italian  
Referring court  
Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — 
Sezione Terza  
Parties to the main proceedings  
Applicant:  Enipower Spa  
Defendant:  Autorità per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas  
Question referred  
Do Articles 23, 43, 49 and 56 of the Treaty and Article 11(2) 
and (6) and Article 24 of Directive 54/03/EC (  1 ) preclude 
national legislation which, without the European Commission 
having been notified, requires on a permanent basis certain 
electricity producers which are, in certain circumstances, 
essential for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the 
demand for dispatching services, to submit bids on the energy 
exchange markets, in accordance with programmes determined 
by the network operator in accordance with external rules, and 
which prevents producers from freely determining the remun ­
eration for such bids by linking the remuneration to criteria that 
have not been pre-determined according to transparent, 
non-discriminatory and market-based procedures?  
( 1 ) OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37EN C 346/24 Official Journal of the European Union 18.12.2010