Case C‑170/12

Peter Pinckney

v

KDG Mediatech AG

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France))

‛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’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 3 October 2013

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Conditions — Questions bearing no relation to the facts of the main action or to its subject‑matter

   (Art. 267 TFEU)

2. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Concepts used by that regulation — Independent interpretation

   (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 5(3))

3. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Special jurisdiction — Restrictive interpretation

   (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 5(3))

4. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict — Place where the harmful even occurred and place of the event giving rise to the damage — Infringements committed via the Internet which may produce their effects in numerous places

   (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 5(3))

5. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict — Place where the harmful even occurred — Infringement of copyright by the reproduction of a work on a material support which is subsequently sold via an Internet site — Jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which the sales site is accessible — Limits — Damage caused in the Member State where the court seised is situated

   (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 5(3); European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29)

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 19, 20)

2.  See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 23)

3.  See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 25)

4.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 26, 31, 32)

5.  Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an 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 which is also accessible within 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.

   Subject to the principle of territoriality, copyrights must, however, be protected automatically — in particular by virtue of Directive 2001/29 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society — in all Member States, to the extent they may be infringed in each of those States in accordance with the applicable substantive law.

   As regards the alleged infringement of a copyright, jurisdiction to hear an action in tort, delict or quasi-delict is already established in favour of the court seised where the Member State in which that court is situated protects the copyrights relied on by the plaintiff and the harmful event alleged may occur within the jurisdiction of the court seised. That likelihood arises, in particular, from the possibility of obtaining a reproduction of the work to which the rights relied on by the defendant pertain from an internet site which is accessible within the jurisdiction of the court seised.

   (see paras 39, 43, 44, 47, operative part)

Case C‑170/12

Peter Pinckney

v

KDG Mediatech AG

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France))

‛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’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 3 October 2013

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Conditions — Questions bearing no relation to the facts of the main action or to its subject‑matter

   (Art. 267 TFEU)

2. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Concepts used by that regulation — Independent interpretation

   (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 5(3))

3. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Special jurisdiction — Restrictive interpretation

   (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 5(3))

4. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict — Place where the harmful even occurred and place of the event giving rise to the damage — Infringements committed via the Internet which may produce their effects in numerous places

   (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 5(3))

5. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict — Place where the harmful even occurred — Infringement of copyright by the reproduction of a work on a material support which is subsequently sold via an Internet site — Jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which the sales site is accessible — Limits — Damage caused in the Member State where the court seised is situated

   (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 5(3); European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29)

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 19, 20)

2.  See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 23)

3.  See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 25)

4.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 26, 31, 32)

5.  Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an 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 which is also accessible within 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.

   Subject to the principle of territoriality, copyrights must, however, be protected automatically — in particular by virtue of Directive 2001/29 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society — in all Member States, to the extent they may be infringed in each of those States in accordance with the applicable substantive law.

   As regards the alleged infringement of a copyright, jurisdiction to hear an action in tort, delict or quasi-delict is already established in favour of the court seised where the Member State in which that court is situated protects the copyrights relied on by the plaintiff and the harmful event alleged may occur within the jurisdiction of the court seised. That likelihood arises, in particular, from the possibility of obtaining a reproduction of the work to which the rights relied on by the defendant pertain from an internet site which is accessible within the jurisdiction of the court seised.

   (see paras 39, 43, 44, 47, operative part)