Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 3 October 2013

Peter Pinckney v KDG Mediatech AG

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France)

Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction — Matters relating to tort, delict and quasi-delict — Copyright — Material support reproducing a protected work — Placing on line — Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred

Case C‑170/12


Top of the page Documents in the Case
Document Date Name of the parties Subject-matter Curia EUR-Lex
Judgment (OJ)
08/11/2013 Pinckney
View pdf documents
Judgment
ECLI:EU:C:2013:635
03/10/2013 Pinckney
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Judgment (Summary)
ECLI:EU:C:2013:635
03/10/2013 Pinckney
Opinion
ECLI:EU:C:2013:400
13/06/2013 Pinckney
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Application (OJ)
01/06/2012 Pinckney
View pdf documents
Top of the page Legal analysis of the decision or of the case

Reports of Cases

published in the electronic Reports of Cases (Court Reports - general)

Subject-matter

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Cour de cassation – Interpretation of Article 5(3) of Council Regulation No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12 p. 1) – Jurisdiction of the national court in matters relating to delict or quasidelict – Criteria to determine the ‘place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’ – Infringement of copyright caused by the placing online dematerialised content or a material carrier medium reproducing that content – Content directed at the public

Systematic classification scheme

1.
3 Legal proceedings
  3.04 Reference for a preliminary ruling
    3.04.02 Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.06 Area of freedom, security and justice
    4.06.02 Judicial cooperation in civil matters
      4.06.02.01 Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments – Civil and commercial matters
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.06 Area of freedom, security and justice
    4.06.02 Judicial cooperation in civil matters
      4.06.02.01 Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments – Civil and commercial matters
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.06 Area of freedom, security and justice
    4.06.02 Judicial cooperation in civil matters
      4.06.02.01 Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments – Civil and commercial matters
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.06 Area of freedom, security and justice
    4.06.02 Judicial cooperation in civil matters
      4.06.02.01 Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments – Civil and commercial matters


Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

  • Directive 2001/29 : paragraph 39
  • Directive 2001/29 -A02 : paragraph 8
  • Directive 2001/29 -A03 : paragraph 8
  • Directive 2001/29 -A04 : paragraph 8
  • Regulation 44/2001 -A02P1 : paragraphs 5, 24
  • Regulation 44/2001 -A03P1 : paragraph 6
  • Regulation 44/2001 -A05PT3 : paragraphs 7, 15, 22, 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, 41, 42, 46, 47
  • Regulation 44/2001 -A15P1LC : paragraph 42
  • Regulation 44/2001 -C11 : paragraph 3
  • Regulation 44/2001 -C12 : paragraph 3
  • Regulation 44/2001 -C15 : paragraph 3
  • Regulation 44/2001 -C2 : paragraph 3
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -11/07 : paragraph 18
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -459/07 : paragraph 19
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -585/08 : paragraph 42
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -509/09 : paragraphs 31, 34, 36
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -523/10 : paragraphs 31 - 34, 37, 40
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -133/11 : paragraph 28
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -228/11 : paragraphs 23 - 29
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -259/12 : paragraph 18

Operative part

  • Interprets : Regulation 44/2001 -A05PT3

Opinion

  • Directive 93/83 -A01P2LB : point 50
  • Directive 96/9 : point 42
  • Directive 96/9 -A07 : point 45
  • Directive 2001/29 : points 23, 28, 30, 64
  • Directive 2001/29 -A02 : points 8, 25
  • Directive 2001/29 -A03P1 : points 9, 28
  • Directive 2001/29 -A04 : points 10, 26
  • Directive 2001/29 -A05P1 : points 29, 32
  • Directive 2001/29 -C23 : point 28
  • Directive 2001/29 -C29 : point 26
  • Regulation 44/2001 : point 68
  • Regulation 44/2001 -A02 : points 46, 69
  • Regulation 44/2001 -A02P1 : points 6, 58
  • Regulation 44/2001 -A05PT3 : points 2, 7, 15, 20, 23, 37, 39, 41, 55, 64, 67, 69, 71, 73
  • Regulation 44/2001 -A05PT6 : point 67
  • Regulation 44/2001 -C12 : point 5
  • Regulation 864/2007 -A08P1 : point 47
  • Directive 2009/24 -A04 : point 28
  • Brussels Convention 1968 -A05PT3 : point 7
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -21/76 : point 52
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -18/93 : point 39
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -68/93 : points 50, 57, 64
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -364/93 : point 53
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -168/02 : point 53
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -192/04 : point 48
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -466/04 : point 34
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -94/07 : point 20
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -313/07 : point 39
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -459/07 : point 34
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -567/07 : point 39
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -5/08 : point 29
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -585/08 : point 66
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -462/09 : point 64
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -92/09 : points 22, 39
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -241/09 : point 19
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -324/09 : points 3, 49, 61
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -509/09 : points 3, 50
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -523/10 : point 70
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -197/10 : point 18
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -523/10 : points 42, 46, 49, 57, 70
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -571/10 : point 9
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -173/11 : point 63
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -228/11 : point 67
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -521/11 : point 44
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -5/11 : points 23, 49, 61
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -128/11 : point 28
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -133/11 : points 6, 52
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -173/11 : points 42, 45, 48, 49, 61, 63, 64
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -228/11 : point 38
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -607/11 : point 28


Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

  • 11/04/2012

Date of the Opinion

  • 13/06/2013

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

03/10/2013


References

Publication in the Official Journal

Application: OJ C 174 from 16.06.2012, p.19

Judgment: OJ C 344 from 23.11.2013, p.27

Name of the parties

Pinckney

Notes on Academic Writings

  1. Sujecki, Bartosz: EuGVVO: Zuständigkeit bei Verletzung von Urhebervermögensrechten über das Internet, Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 2013 p.866-867 (DE)
  2. Schack, Haimo: Internationale Zuständigkeit bei Verletzung von Urhebervermögensrechten über Internet, Neue juristische Wochenschrift 2013 p.3629-3630 (DE)
  3. Près, Xavier: De l'ubiquité d'internet à la compétence systématique du juge français pour connaître des atteintes aux droits patrimoniaux d'auteur ou la consécration de la théorie de l'accessibilité par la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne, Droit de l'immatériel : informatique, médias, communication 2013 nº 99 p.14-18 (FR)
  4. Idot, Laurence: Matière délictuelle et atteinte aux droits patrimoniaux d'un auteur, Europe 2013 Décembre Comm. nº 12 p.558 (FR)
  5. Strikwerda, L.: Nederlandse jurisprudentie ; Uitspraken in burgerlijke en strafzaken 2014 nº 166 (NL)
  6. Rosati, Eleonora: Brussels I Regulation and online copyright infringement: "intention to target" approach rejected, Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice 2014 p.18-19 (EN)
  7. Bohaczewski, Michał: Jurysdykcja krajowa w sprawach o naruszenie praw autorskich w Internecie - Glosa do wyroku Trybunału Sprawiedliwości z 3.10.2013 r. w sprawie C-170/12 Peter Pinckney przeciwko KDG Mediatech AG, Glosa : Przegląd Prawa Gospodarczego 2014 Vol. 3 p.89-102 (PL)
  8. Usunier, Laurence: Du 3 octobre 2013 - Cour de justice de l'Union européenne - Aff. C-170/12, Revue critique de droit international privé 2014 nº 1 p.195-206 (FR)
  9. Grünberger, Michael: Zuständigkeitsbegründender Erfolgsort bei Urheberrechtsverletzungen, Praxis des internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts 2015 p.56-65 (DE)
  10. Picht, Peter ; Kopp, Caroline: Die internationale Zuständigkeit für Immaterialgüterrechtsverletzungen im Internet nach den EuGH-Entscheidungen Hejduk und Pinckney, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht INT 2016 p.232-236 (DE)



Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

Cour de cassation - France

Subject-matter

  • area of freedom, security and justice
  • - Judicial cooperation in civil matters

Procedure and result

  • Reference for a preliminary ruling

Formation of the Court

quatrième chambre (Cour)

Judge-Rapporteur

Safjan

Advocate General

Jääskinen

Language(s) of the Case

  • French

Language(s) of the Opinion

  • French