Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62012CA0170

Case C-170/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Peter Pinckney v KDG Mediatech AG (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction — Matters relating to tort, delict and quasi-delict — Copyright — Material support reproducing a protected work — Placing on line — Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred)

OJ C 344, 23.11.2013, p. 27–27 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

23.11.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/27


Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Peter Pinckney v KDG Mediatech AG

(Case C-170/12) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction - Matters relating to tort, delict and quasi-delict - Copyright - Material support reproducing a protected work - Placing on line - Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred)

2013/C 344/45

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Peter Pinckney

Defendant: KDG Mediatech AG

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation — Interpretation of 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 (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Jurisdiction of the national court in matters of tort, delict and quasi-delict — Criteria for determining the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur — Infringement of copyright caused by the placing on-line of dematerialised content or a material carrier medium reproducing the content — Content directed at the public

Operative part of the judgment

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 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of alleged infringement of copyrights protected by the Member State of the court seised, the latter has jurisdiction to hear an action to establish liability brought by the author of a work against a company established in another Member State and which has, in the latter State, reproduced that work on a material support which is subsequently sold by companies established in a third Member State through an internet site also accessible with the jurisdiction of the court seised. That court has jurisdiction only to determine the damage caused in the Member State within which it is situated.


(1)  OJ C 174, 16.6.2012.


Top