Brussels I: Recent developments in the interpretation of special jurisdiction provisions for internet torts

Abstract

The paper deals with recent rulings of the European Court of Justice regarding the international jurisdiction of European courts in connection with infringements over the Internet. The aim of the paper is to illustrate a shift in the judicature of the Court and the need for a recast of the special jurisdiction provisions in the Brussels I Regulation. The main focal point is the ruling in the case C-170/12 Peter Pinckney v KDG Mediatech AG, which contains two surprising conclusions. Firstly, the intentions of the alleged infringer to target a certain jurisdiction are not to be taken into consideration. The decisive connecting factor is solely the fact that the harmful event may occur within the jurisdiction of the court. Secondly, the actions of an independent third party can now establish the jurisdiction for a suit against the alleged infringer. This has been the subject of two other recent cases C-387/12 Hi Hotel HCF Sparl v Uwe Spoering and C-360/12 Coty Germany GmbH v First Note Perfumes NV. In both of these cases the sole actions of the alleged infringer would not suffice to establish the jurisdiction of the court in question. The paper tries to evaluate these rulings in light of procedural fairness and the traditional interpretation of special jurisdiction provisions.