PUBLICATION – LITIGATION – PRIVATE IN-TERNATIONAL LAW
Court of place in which publisher of online content is established or in which the centre of his interests is based has full jurisdiction in respect of all damages
• that Article 5(3) of the Regulation must be in-terpreted as meaning that, in the event of an alleged infringement of personality rights by means of con-tent placed online on an internet website, the person who considers that his rights have been infringed has the option of bringing an action for liability, in respect of all the damage caused, either before the courts of the Member State in which the publisher of that content is established or before the courts of the Member State in which the centre of his interests is based.
Court of territory of which online content was ac-cessible only has jurisdiction in respect of damage caused in that territory
• That person may also, instead of an action for liability in respect of all the damage caused, bring his action before the courts of each Member State in the territory of which content placed online is or has been accessible. Those courts have jurisdiction only in respect of the damage caused in the territory of the Member State of the court seised.
Member States to ensure that provider of an elec-tronic commerce service is not subject to stricter requirements than in the state in which it is estab-lished
• that Article 3 of the Directive must be inter-preted as not requiring transposition in the form of a specific conflict-of-laws rule. Nevertheless, in rela-tion to the coordinated field, Member States must ensure that, subject to the derogations authorised in accordance with the conditions set out in Article 3(4) of the Directive, the provider of an electronic commerce service is not made subject to stricter requirements than those provided for by the sub-stantive law applicable in the Member State in which that service provider is established.
IPPT20111025, CJEU, eDate Advertising and MGN
