In Europe the court of a jurisdiction where a website publishing copyrighted material is accessible, has jurisdiction of a claim for copyright infringement as the place where the damage occurred. On 22 January 2015, the European Court of Justice (ECJ), in Case C‑441/13, deciding a request for a preliminary ruling concerning the 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 (Regulation 44/2001), held that

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 an allegation of infringement of copyright and rights related to copyright guaranteed by the Member State of the court seised, that court has jurisdiction, on the basis of the place where the damage occurred, to hear an action for damages in respect of an infringement of those rights resulting from the placing of protected photographs online on a website accessible in its territorial jurisdiction. That court has jurisdiction only to rule on the damage caused in the Member State within which the court is situated.

An Austrian professional photographer (Ms Hejduk) domiciled in Vienna (Austria), had sued in Vienna EnergieAgentur.NRW GmbH, which had its seat in Germany, for publishing without Ms. Hejduk’s consent some photographs of hers in their website. The German company had objected to the Vienna court’s jurisdiction, “claiming that its website is not directed at Austria and that the mere fact that a website may be accessed from Austria is insufficient to confer jurisdiction on that court.” The Vienna court had stayed the proceeding and referred the following question to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling:

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?

As said above, the ECJ sided with the photographer and found that the Vienna court had jurisdiction based on the Regulation, as the court of the place where the damage occurred.

Read full decision here