Is Article 5(3) of [Regulation No 44/2001] to be interpreted as meaning that, in a dispute concerning an infringement of rights related to copyright which is alleged to have been committed by keeping a photograph accessible on a website, the website being operated under the top-level domain of a Member State other than that in which the proprietor of the right is domiciled, there is jurisdiction only — in the Member State in which the alleged perpetrator of the infringement is established; and — in the Member State(s) to which the website, according to its content, is directed?

Article 5(3) allows jurisdiction on the basis of the location where the damage occurred, regardless of the website's direction, but jurisdiction is limited to damage within the court's Member State.

Jurisdiction based on damage location in copyright infringement cases involving online content.

European Court of Justice · Judgment · Preliminary ruling

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 5(3) — Special jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Copyright — Dematerialised content — Placing online — Determination of the place of the event giving rise to the damage — Criteria’

Rechtsvraag

The central legal question is whether Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 allows a court to have jurisdiction in matters of copyright infringement when the infringing material is accessible online in the court's jurisdiction, even if the website is not specifically directed towards that jurisdiction.

Regel

Article 5(3), Regulation No 44/2001 (special jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict)
Article 2(1), Regulation No 44/2001 (general jurisdiction based on defendant's domicile)
Article 1(1), Directive 2001/29/EC (harmonization of copyright protection in the information society)

Conclusie

The court concluded that Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 allows the Austrian court to have jurisdiction over the case based on the place where the damage occurred, meaning the accessibility of the photographs online in Austria. Therefore, the Austrian court can hear the case regarding damages for copyright infringement but is limited to ruling on the damage caused within Austria.

Tijdlijn

16-09-2004 As part of a conference organized by EnergieAgentur, Austrian architect Georg W. Reinberg used Ms. Hejduk’s photographs to illustrate his buildings, with her authorization.
After 16-09-2004 EnergieAgentur, without Ms. Hejduk’s consent and without providing a statement of authorship, made the photographs available on its website for viewing and downloading.
Unknown Ms. Hejduk brought an action before the Handelsgericht Wien for damages in the sum of EUR 4,050, and for authorization to publish the judgment at the expense of the defendant, citing infringement of her copyright by EnergieAgentur.
03-07-2013 The Handelsgericht Wien decided to stay the proceedings and to refer a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001.
05-08-2013 The request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien was received at the Court of Justice of the European Union.
11-09-2014 The Advocate General delivered their opinion at the sitting regarding the interpretation of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001.
22-01-2015 The Court of Justice of the European Union delivered its judgment on the interpretation of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001, concluding that the court has jurisdiction based on the place where the damage occurred to hear an action for damages resulting from the placing of protected photographs online.