The CJEU as an Innovator – a New Perspective on the Development of Internet Related Case-law

Ulf Maunsbach


In this paper I will use concepts from innovation theory to analyse the work of the Court of Justice of the European Union in its important role as sole interpreter of EU law. In that regard, I define ‘innovator’ as one that facilitates use of new or existing inventions. Thus innovation is portrayed as a process in which several actors may contribute and where it all starts with an invention (the solution) and it ends with the innovation (the process of making use of the invention). The Court of Justice of the European Union may be an inventor in as much as it is allowed to invent solutions in order to solve new or existing problems, and it may be innovative in as much as it hands down judgments that shall be followed (i.e. it makes use of the invention).

The substance of the paper deals with case-law from the Court of Justice of the European Union in the field of cross-border infringements. The cases will be analysed in relation to the idea that legal decision-making can be described as an innovative process. An approach like this makes it possible to draw conclusions regarding the Court of Justice of the European Unions ability to innovate. It will be apparent that the Court is primarily concerned with so called reactive innovation (i.e. innovation that builds on existing knowledge). Only in exceptional circumstances do we find examples where the Court has proved to conduct in proactive innovation (i.e. inventing and applying new solutions) and this may, according to the author, prove to be a preferred standard. Better to drive safely than to drive in the ditch.


Legal Innovation, Private International Law, Jurisdiction, EU Law, Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)

Full Text:


Show references Hide references

[1] Concurrence Sàrl v Samsung Electronics France SAS and Amazon Services Europe Sàrl (2016) case C 618/15, Court of Justice of the European Union (Third Chamber), 21 December.

[2] Coty Germany GmbH v First Note Perfumes NV(2014) case C-360/12, Court of Justice of the European Union (Forth Chamber), 5 June.

[3] eDate Advertising GmbH v. X and Olivier Martinez, Robert Martinez v MGN Limited (2010) joined cases C-509/09 and C-161/10, Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber), 25 October.

[4] Fiona Shevill, Ixora Trading Inc., Chequepoint SARL and Chequepoint International Ltd v. Presse Alliance SA (1995) case C-68/93, Court of Justice of the European Union, 27 March.

[5] Football Dataco Ltd and Others v. Sportradar GmbH and Sportradar AG(2012) case C 173/11, Court of Justice of the European Union (Third Chamber), 18 October.

[6] Google France SARL and Google Inc. v. Louis Vuitton Malletier SA; Google France SARL v. Viaticum SA and Luteciel SARL and Google France SARL v. Centre national de recherche en relations humaines (CNRRH) SARL and Others (2010) joined cases C-236/08, C-237/08 and C-238/08, Court of Justice of the European Union, (Grand Chamber), 23 March 2010.

[7] Handelskwekerij G. J. Bier BV v. Mines de potasse d'Alsace SA(1976) case C-21/76, Court of Justice of the European Union, 30 November.

[8] Hi Hotel HCF SARL v. Uwe Spoering (2014) case C-387/12, Court of Justice of the European Union (Forth Chamber), 3 April.

[9] Jaouad El Majdoub v. CarsOnTheWeb.Deutschland GmbH(2015) case C-322/14, Court of Justice of the European Union (Third Chamber), 21 May.

[10] Maunsbach, U. (2017) How to Facilitate Legal Innovations - Like Home Cooking with a Twist [Online]. Owen Dixon Society eJournal. Available from: [Accessed 12 June 2017].

[11] Peter Pammer v. Reederei Karl Schlüter GmbH & Co KG and Hotel Alpenhof GesmbH
v. Oliver Helle
r (2010) joined cases C-585/08 and C-144/09, Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber), 7 December.

[12] Peter Pinckney v. KDG Mediatech AG (2013) case C-170/12, Court of Justice of the European Union (Fourth Chamber), 3 October.

[13] Pez Hejduk v. EnergieAgentur.NRW GmbH (2015) case C-441/13, Court of Justice of the European Union (Fourth Chamber), 22 January.

[14] Rosenberg, N. and Birdzell, L.E. (1986) How the West Grew Rich – the Economic Transformation of the Industrial World. Basic Books.

[15] Salzberger, Eli M., (ed.) (2012) Law and Economics of Innovations. Edward Elgar.

[16] Shapira, A. (1970) the Interest Approach to Choice of Law. Martinus Nijhoff.

[17] Schumpeter, J.A. (1934) the Theory of Economic Development. Harvard University Press.

[18] Wintersteiger AG v. Products 4U Sondermaschinenbau GmbH. (2012) case C-523/10, Court of Justice of the European Union (First Chamber), 19 April.

Crossref Cited-by (1)

The listed references are provided by Cited-by (Crossref service) and thus do not represent the full list of sources citing the article.

1. Kritická analýza judikatury Soudního dvora EU ve věcech určení mezinárodní příslušnosti soudů v případě pomluvy a porušení osobnostních práv na internetu
Tereza Kyselovská
Časopis pro právní vědu a praxi  vol: 26,  issue: 4,  first page: 589,  year: 2018

Copyright (c) 2017 Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology