CELEX: 62020CA0251
Language: en
Date: 2021-12-21 00:00:00
Title: Case C-251/20: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Gtflix Tv v DR (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 7(2) — Special jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Publication on the internet of allegedly disparaging comments concerning a person — Place where the harmful event occurred — Courts of each Member State in which content placed online is or has been accessible)

21.2.2022   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 84/13
            
         
      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Gtflix Tv v DR
      (Case C-251/20) (1)
      
      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 7(2) - Special jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict - Publication on the internet of allegedly disparaging comments concerning a person - Place where the harmful event occurred - Courts of each Member State in which content placed online is or has been accessible)
      (2022/C 84/14)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Referring court
      
      Cour de cassation
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicant: Gtflix Tv
      
         Defendant: DR
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      Article 7(2) of 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 must be interpreted as meaning that a person who, considering that his or her rights have been infringed by the dissemination of disparaging comments concerning him or her on the internet, seeks not only the rectification of the information and the removal of the content placed online concerning him or her but also compensation for the damage resulting from that placement may claim, before the courts of each Member State in which those comments are or were accessible, compensation for the damage suffered in the Member State of the court seised, even though those courts do not have jurisdiction to rule on the application for rectification and removal.
      
         (1)  OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.