Bolagsupplysningen OÜ and Ingrid Ilsjan v Svensk Handel AB.
Date: 2017-10-17
17


Nonetheless, the referring court adds that, unlike an intellectual and industrial property right, whose protection is limited to the territory of the Member State in which that right is registered, the rights that have allegedly been infringed in the present case are not, by their nature, rights that can only be protected within the territory of certain Member States (see, to that effect, judgment of 3 October 2013, Pinckney, C‑170/12, EU:C:2013:635, paragraphs 35 to 37). Bolagsupplysningen claims, in essence, that the publication of the incorrect information has harmed its good name and reputation. In that regard, the Court of Justice has previously held that injury caused by a defamatory publication to the reputation and good name of a legal person occurs in the places where the publication is distributed and in which the victim claims to have suffered injury to its reputation (judgment of 7 March 1995, Shevill and Others, C‑68/93, EU:C:1995:61, paragraphs 29 and 30).
19


Nor is it possible to determine whether Bolagsupplysningen may also seek compensation for the entirety of the damage that it claims to have suffered before the Estonian courts. Recalling the principle that a person who considers that his rights have been infringed by means of content placed online on a website has the option of bringing an action for damages, in respect of all the harm caused, either before the courts of the Member State in which the publisher of that content is established or before the courts of the Member State in which the centre of his interests is based (judgment of 25 October 2011, eDate Advertising and Others, C‑509/09 and C‑161/10, EU:C:2011:685, paragraph 52), the referring court notes that that principle was adopted specifically in the context of the infringement of the personality rights of a natural person. The referring court states that this is why it has not been established that that principle also applies to legal persons.
24


In that regard, it is necessary to make clear that the interpretation given by the Court concerning Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 also applies with regard to the equivalent provision of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012 (see, by analogy, judgment of 15 June 2017, Kareda, C‑249/16, EU:C:2017:472, paragraph 27).
25


It is settled case-law that the rule of special jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict must be interpreted independently, by reference to the scheme and purpose of the regulation of which it forms part (see, to that effect, judgment of 25 October 2011, eDate Advertising and Others, C‑509/09 and C‑161/10, EU:C:2011:685, paragraph 38).
26


That rule of special jurisdiction is based on the existence of a particularly close connecting factor between the dispute and the courts of the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur, which justifies the attribution of jurisdiction to those courts for reasons relating to the sound administration of justice and the efficacious conduct of proceedings (see, inter alia, judgments of 25 October 2011, eDate Advertising and Others, C‑509/09 and C‑161/10, EU:C:2011:685, paragraph 40, and of 22 January 2015, Hejduk, C‑441/13, EU:C:2015:28, paragraph 19 and the case-law cited).
27


In matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur are usually the most appropriate for deciding the case, in particular on the grounds of proximity and ease of taking evidence (judgments of 16 May 2013, Melzer, C‑228/11, EU:C:2013:305, paragraph 27, and of 21 May 2015, CDC Hydrogen Peroxide, C‑352/13, EU:C:2015:335, paragraph 40).
29


Having noted that, it should be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law of the Court, the expression ‘place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’ is intended to cover both the place where the damage occurred and the place of the event giving rise to it, since each of them could, depending on the circumstances, be particularly helpful in relation to the evidence and the conduct of the proceedings (judgment of 25 October 2011, eDate Advertising and Others, C‑509/09 and C‑161/10, EU:C:2011:685, paragraph 41 and the case-law cited).
31


In that regard, the Court has held, in relation to actions seeking compensation for non-material damage allegedly caused by a defamatory article published in the printed press, that the victim may bring an action for damages against the publisher before the courts of each Member State in which the publication was distributed and where the victim claims to have suffered injury to his reputation, which have jurisdiction to rule solely in respect of the harm caused in the Member State of the court seised (judgment of 7 March 1995, Shevill and Others, C‑68/93, EU:C:1995:61, paragraph 33).
32


In the specific context of the internet, the Court has, nonetheless, ruled, in a case relating to a natural person, that, in the event of an alleged infringement of personality rights by means of content placed online on a website, the person who considers that his rights have been infringed must have the option of bringing an action for damages, in respect of all the harm caused, before the courts of the Member State in which the centre of his interests is based (judgment of 25 October 2011, eDate Advertising and Others, C‑509/09 and C‑161/10, EU:C:2011:685, paragraph 52).
34


The courts of the Member State in which the centre of interests of the person affected is located are, consequently, best placed to assess the impact of such content on the rights of that person (see, to that effect, judgment of 25 October 2011, eDate Advertising and Others, C‑509/09 and C‑161/10, EU:C:2011:685, paragraph 48).
35


Moreover, the criterion of the centre of interests accords with the aim of predictability of the rules governing jurisdiction, since it allows both the applicant easily to identify the court in which he may sue and the defendant reasonably to foresee before which court he may be sued (judgment of 25 October 2011, eDate Advertising and Others, C‑509/09 and C‑161/10, EU:C:2011:685, paragraph 50).
39


In that regard, the Court has pointed out that the rule of special jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict does not pursue the same objective as the rules on jurisdiction laid down in Sections 3 to 5 of Chapter II of Regulation No 1215/2012, which are designed to offer the weaker party stronger protection (see, to that effect, judgment of 25 October 2012, Folien Fischer and Fofitec, C‑133/11, EU:C:2012:664, paragraph 46). The criterion of the centre of interests is intended to determine the place in which damage caused by online content occurs and, consequently, the Member State whose courts are best able to hear and to rule upon the dispute.
40


As to the identification of the centre of interests, the Court has stated that, with regard to a natural person, this generally corresponds to the Member State of his habitual residence. However, such a person may also have his centre of interests in a Member State in which he does not habitually reside, in so far as other factors, such as the pursuit of a professional activity, may establish the existence of a particularly close link with that State (judgment of 25 October 2011, eDate Advertising and Others, C‑509/09 and C‑161/10, EU:C:2011:685, paragraph 49).
48


However, in the light of the ubiquitous nature of the information and content placed online on a website and the fact that the scope of their distribution is, in principle, universal (see, to that effect, judgment of 25 October 2011, eDate Advertising and Others, C‑509/09 and C‑161/10, EU:C:2011:685, paragraph 46), an application for the rectification of the former and the removal of the latter is a single and indivisible application and can, consequently, only be made before a court with jurisdiction to rule on the entirety of an application for compensation for damage pursuant to the case-law resulting from the judgments of 7 March 1995, Shevill and Others (C‑68/93, EU:C:1995:61, paragraphs 25, 26 and 32), and of 25 October 2011, eDate Advertising and Others (C‑509/09 and C‑161/10, EU:C:2011:685, paragraphs 42 and 48), and not before a court that does not have jurisdiction to do so.