Brussels I: Recent Developments in the Interpretation of Special Jurisdiction Provisions for Internet Torts.

Martin Šrámek

Abstract

The paper deals with recent rulings of the European Court of Justice regarding the international jurisdiction of European courts in connection with infringements over the Internet. The aim of the paper is to illustrate a shift in the judicature of the Court and the need for a recast of the special jurisdiction provisions in the Brussels I Regulation.

The main focal point is the ruling in the case C-170/12 Peter Pinckney v KDG Mediatech AG, which contains two surprising conclusions. Firstly, the intentions of the alleged infringer to target a certain jurisdiction are not to be taken into consideration. The decisive connecting factor is solely the fact that the harmful event may occur within the jurisdiction of the court. Secondly, the actions of anindependent third party can now establish the jurisdiction for a suit against the alleged infringer. This has been the subject of two other recent cases C-387/12 Hi Hotel HCF Sparl v Uwe Spoering and C-360/12 Coty Germany GmbH v First Note Perfumes NV. In both of these cases the sole actions of the alleged infringer would not suffice to establish the jurisdiction of the court in question. The paper tries to evaluate these rulings in light of procedural fairness and the traditional interpretation od special jurisdiction provisions.

Keywords

international jurisdiction; special jurisdiction for torts; Brussels I Regulation

Full Text:

References

Show references Hide references

Berger, Ch 2005, 'Die internationale Zuständigkeit bei Urheberrechtsverletzungen in Internet-Websites aufgrund des Gerichtsstands der unerlaubten Handlung nach Art. 5 Nr. 3 EuGVO', GRUR Int., vol. 6, p. 465.

CJEU in Bier, C-21/76, EU:C:1976:166.

CJEU in Dumez, C-220/88, EU:C:1990:8.

CJEU in eDate Advertising and others, C-509/09, EU:C:1995:61.

CJEU in Folien Fischer and Fofitec, C-133/11, EU:C:2012:664.

CJEU in Hi Hotel HCF, C-387/12, EU:C:2014:215.

CJEU in Marinari, C-364/93, EU:C:1995:289.

CJEU in Melzer, C-228/11, EU:C:2013:305.

CJEU in Pammer and Hotel Alpenhof, C-585/08, C-144/09, EU:C:2010:740.

CJEU in Pinckney, C-170/12, EU:C:2013:635.

CJEU in Shevill, C-68/93, EU:C:1995:61.

CJEU in Wintersteiger, C-523/10, EU:C:2012:220, para 24.

Villalón, C, Opinion in Hejduk, C-441/13, EU:C:2014:2212.

Fawcett, JJ, Torremans, P 2011, Intellectual Property and Private International Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Husovec, M 2014, 'Jurisdiction on the Internet after Pinckney', International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, vol. 45, no. 3., p. 370.

Jääskinen, Opinion in Coty Germany, C-360/12, EU:C:2013:764.

Jääskinen, Opinion in Pinckney, C-170/12, EU:C:2013:400.

Kropholler, J, von Hein, J 2011, Europäisches Zivilprozessrecht, Recht und Wirtschaft, Frankfurt am Main.

Müller, M 2011, 'EuGVVO: Deliktsgerichtsstand bei Teilnahmehandlung in anderem Mitgliedstaat', Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, no. 11, p. 434.

Rauscher, T 2011, Europäisches Zivilprozess- und Kollisionsrecht, Sellier, München.

Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.

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.

The 1709 Blog 2012, Extension of eDate Principles to Performers’ Neighbouring Rights, viewed 7 June 2015 <http://the1709blog.blogspot.cz/2012/10/extension-of-edate-principlesto.html>.

Thiede, T 2012, Aktivgerichtsstand für Betroffene von Persönlichkeitsrechtsverletzungen im Onlinebereich, ecolex , p. 131.

von Hein, J 2014, 'Markenrecht: Internationale Zuständigkeit bei Markenrechtsverletzung durch mehrere Beteiligte', Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, no. 17, p. 668.

https://doi.org/10.5817/MUJLT2015-1-10


Copyright (c) 2015 Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology