Case C‑194/16

Bolagsupplysningen OÜ
and
Ingrid Ilsjan

v

Svensk Handel AB

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 7(2) — Special jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Infringement of the rights of a legal person by the publication on the internet of allegedly incorrect information concerning that person and by the failure to remove comments relating to that person — Place where the damage occurred — Centre of interests of that person)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 17 October 2017

1. Judicial cooperation in civil matters—Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters—Regulation No 1215/2012—Special jurisdiction—Jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict—Infringement of personality rights by means of content placed online on a website—Place where the damage occurred—Possibility for the victim to bring an action in the place of its centre of interests—Concept of the centre of interests

   (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1215/2012, Art. 7(2))

2. Judicial cooperation in civil matters—Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters—Regulation No 1215/2012—Special jurisdiction—Jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict—Infringement of personality rights by means of content placed online on a website—Place where the damage occurred—Possibility for the victim to bring an action in the place of its centre of interests—Determination of the centre of interests—Lack of impact of the material or non-material nature of the damage—Lack of impact of the natural or legal nature of the person who is the victim

   (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1215/2012, Art. 7(2))

3. Judicial cooperation in civil matters—Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters—Regulation No 1215/2012—Special jurisdiction—Jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict—Aim

   (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1215/2012, Art. 7(2))

4. Judicial cooperation in civil matters—Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters—Regulation No 1215/2012—Special jurisdiction—Jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict—Infringement of personality rights of a legal person by the publication of incorrect information concerning it on the internet and by the failure to remove comments relating to it—Place where the damage occurred—Possibility for the victim to bring an action before the courts of the Member State in which its centre of interests is located for rectification of that information, removal of those comments and compensation in respect of all the damage sustained—Determination of the centre of interests of a legal person carrying out the main part of its activities in a Member State other than the one in which its registered office is located

   (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1215/2012, Art. 7(2))

5. Judicial cooperation in civil matters—Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters—Regulation No 1215/2012—Special jurisdiction—Jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict—Infringement of personality rights of a person by the publication of incorrect information concerning him on the internet and by the failure to remove comments relating to him—Place where the damage occurred—Possibility for the victim to bring an action before the courts of each Member State in which that information is distributed for rectification of that information and removal of those comments—Lack

   (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1215/2012, Art. 7(2))

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 32-35)

2.  While the question whether the damage is material or non-material may, depending on the applicable law, have an influence on whether the damage allegedly suffered is reparable, it has no bearing on the determination of the centre of interests as the place in which a court can best assess the actual impact of the publication on the internet and its harmful nature.

   Second, given that the option of a person who considers that his rights have been infringed to bring an action before the courts of the Member State in which his centre of interests is located for all the alleged damage is justified in the interests of the sound administration of justice and not specifically for the purposes of protecting the applicant, the matter of whether the person is a natural or legal person is also not conclusive.

   (see paras 37, 38)

3.  See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 39)

4.  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 legal person claiming that its personality rights have been infringed by the publication of incorrect information concerning it on the internet and by a failure to remove comments relating to that person can bring an action for rectification of that information, removal of those comments and compensation in respect of all the damage sustained before the courts of the Member State in which its centre of interests is located.

   When the relevant legal person carries out the main part of its activities in a different Member State from the one in which its registered office is located, that person may sue the alleged perpetrator of the injury in that other Member State by virtue of it being where the damage occurred. As regards a legal person pursuing an economic activity, such as the applicant in the main proceedings, the centre of interests of such a person must reflect the place where its commercial reputation is most firmly established and must, therefore, be determined by reference to the place where it carries out the main part of its economic activities. While the centre of interests of a legal person may coincide with the place of its registered office when it carries out all or the main part of its activities in the Member State in which that office is situated and the reputation that it enjoys there is consequently greater than in any other Member State, the location of that office is, not, however, in itself, a conclusive criterion for the purposes of such an analysis.

   It is also appropriate to point out that, in circumstances where it is not clear from the evidence that the court must consider at the stage when it assesses whether it has jurisdiction that the economic activity of the relevant legal person is carried out mainly in a certain Member State, so that the centre of interests of the legal person which is claiming to be the victim of an infringement of its personality rights cannot be identified, that person cannot benefit from the right to sue the alleged perpetrator of the infringement pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012 for the entirety of the compensation on the basis of the place where the damage occurred.

   (see paras 41, 43, 44, operative part 1)

5.  Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that a person who alleges that his personality rights have been infringed by the publication of incorrect information concerning him on the internet and by the failure to remove comments relating to him cannot bring an action for rectification of that information and removal of those comments before the courts of each Member State in which the information published on the internet is or was accessible.

   It is true that, in paragraphs 51 and 52 of the judgment of 25 October 2011, eDate Advertising and Others (C‑509/09 and C‑161/10, EU:C:2011:685), the Court held that the person who considers that his rights have been infringed may also, instead of an action for damages in respect of all the harm caused, bring his action before the courts of each Member State in whose territory content placed online is or has been accessible, which have jurisdiction only in respect of the harm caused in the territory of the Member State of the court seised.

   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.

   (see paras 47-49, operative part 2)