[Editor's note] Like most countries and regions in the world, The rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union have important guiding significance and predictive value for understanding the legal norms of the European Union. Esabaril (ELZABURU) At the beginning of each year, typical cases of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the previous year are summarized and published, And a brief review of each case, In order to help customers and partners to understand the EU intellectual property norms. Given the importance of Chinese customers and partners, We try to publish the Chinese version of typical cases on a weekly basis, It is convenient for Chinese partners to learn the latest information in a timely manner. 　　

[background] 　　Hejduk I'm a professional architectural photographer, Created a series about Austrian architects George W. Reinberg Photography of architectural works. get Hejduk After permission, George W. Reinberg In a German company EnergieAgentur in 2004 The above photographs were used at the conference organized in 2005. subsequently, The German company used the above photography on its website without permission. Hejduk Upon learning of this situation, File a copyright infringement suit in an Austrian court. EnergieAgentur Challenge jurisdiction, Held that the court had no international jurisdiction, Because the domain name ends with ". de" , So the controversial website where the public can access the copyright works involved is located in Germany, Not Austria. The plaintiff argues that the photographic images on the disputed website can also be accessed in Austria, Enough to prove that the Austrian court does "Regulation of the Council of the European Union on jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial cases (The first 44/2001/EC No) " (Hereinafter referred to as "Brussels II No" , 2012 Years have passed by "Eu Regulations on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in civil and commercial cases (The first 1215/2012 No) " replace——Translator's note) The first 5. 3 Provision of article, That it has jurisdiction over the case. In view of this, The court of Cassation requested the European Court of Justice (Court of Justice) To make a preliminary determination on the jurisdiction of the case. 　　

[conclusion] 　　 "Brussels II No" The first 5. 3 Article provision, Disputes concerning torts or quasi-torts, An alleged infringer whose domicile is in another member State, Can be sued in the courts of the Member State in which the infringement took place or is likely to take place. The European Court of Justice has stated in previous cases, The first 5. 3 The rule is the exception rule, Strict interpretation shall apply. Therefore, Only proof, There is a particularly strong connection between the act at issue and the place where the harm actually occurred or is likely to occur, To apply the exception rule, That the relevant court has jurisdiction. This link includes, Causal event, Cause damage, An event that causes or is likely to cause damage. The causal event in this case is, Putting controversial photography on the Internet, Technical processes that allow public access, It happened in Germany. however, Analysis from the field in which the work can be accessed, It actually caused damage in Germany and Austria at the same time. For that matter, The European Court of Justice held that, Controversial websites are not the only ones "point" or "Intended for" Fields within which the courts of the member States have jurisdiction. Based on this, and Hejduk The fact that his photography is equally copyrighted in Austria, European court of justice ruling, The infringement of a work's copyright took place in Germany, It is also accessible in Austria, The consequences of the damage caused by the act also affect the legal disputes in Austria, The Austrian courts therefore have jurisdiction. 　　

[comment] 　　The issues resolved by the preliminary determination of the case, Almost the same as before Pinckney case (Case number: C-170/12) The same as. The European Court of Justice 2013 years 10 month 3 In the ruling of the case, To determine whether copyright infringement is likely to cause harm in a particular member state, It all depends on whether the rights that the plaintiff believes have been infringed are protected in that member State, And access to the work in question through the Internet in that member State.

　　compile: Liu Dan, Esabarry Legal Counsel　　source: Esabaril (ELZABURU) Intellectual property rights