Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62012CN0170

Case C-170/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 11 April 2012 — Peter Pinckney v KDG mediatech AG

OJ C 174, 16.6.2012, p. 19–19 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

16.6.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 174/19

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 11 April 2012 — Peter Pinckney v KDG mediatech AG

(Case C-170/12)

2012/C 174/29

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Peter Pinckney

Defendant: KDG mediatech AG

Questions referred

1.

Is Article 5(3) 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 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an alleged infringement of copyright committed by means of content placed online on a website,

—

the person who considers that his rights have been infringed has the option of bringing an action to establish liability before the courts of each Member State in the territory of which content placed online is or has been accessible, in order to obtain compensation solely in respect of the damage suffered on the territory of the Member State before which the action is brought,

or

—

does that content also have to be, or to have been, directed at the public located in the territory of that Member State, or must some other clear connecting factor be present?

2.

Is the answer to Question 1 the same if the alleged infringement of copyright results, not from the placing of dematerialised content online, but, as in the present case, from the online sale of a material carrier medium which reproduces that content?

(1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1

Top