eDate Advertising GmbH v. X and Martinez & Anr v. MGN Ltd.
In the Court of Justice of the European Union
Case C-509/09 and C-161/10
Before the members of the Grand Chamber
Decided on October 25, 2011

Relevancy of the Case: Appropriate jurisdiction for an affected person in cases involving a violation of personal rights by online publications by websites based in other member states

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• Council Regulation 44/2001 (Article 5(3))
• European Parliament Directive 2000/31/EC (Article 3(1), 3(2))

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The Grand Chamber heard two cases together for this judgement.
• In both cases, the claimants state that online publications on websites in other member states violated their personal rights.
• In C-509/09:
  • A German court prescribed life imprisonment for X and his brother for the murder of a well-known actor. The administration released him on parole in January 2008.
  • eDate is an Austria-based internet portal operator. It shared old news articles naming X and his brother.
  • While eDate did not respond to X’s notice, it removed the disputed information from the website.
  • Afterwards, X approached a German court to restrain the defendant from using his full name while reporting the crime. X was successful in both lower courts, and eDate has approached the German Federal Court of Justice seeking the dismissal of the lower court’s order.
• In C-161/10:
  • Olivier Martinez, a French actor, and his father complained of interference with their private lives. The claimant also contended infringement of his image rights by the defendant. The defendant company owns the Sunday Mirror UK website. An article on this website talked about his relationship status, which aggrieved the claimant.
  • The defendant, an English company, objected that the Paris Regional Court (Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris) does not have jurisdiction in the present case. There is no sufficient link to connect the posting of a news article and its damage in French territory.

Opinion of the Bench

• The rule of special jurisdiction is based on a particularly close connecting factor between the dispute and the courts of the place where the harmful event occurred.
• The place where a person has the centre of his interests corresponds to his habitual residence. However, a person may also have the centre of his interests in a member state where he does not habitually reside.

Final Decision

• A person who considers that his rights have been affected can bring an action :
  • Before the courts of the member state in which the publisher is based or
  • Before the courts of the member state in which his centre of interest is or
  • Before the courts of each member state from which the content was accessible. However, these courts would have jurisdiction only regarding the damage caused in their territory.