Reports of Cases

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

Subject-matter

Information not available

Systematic classification scheme

Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

• Directive 2000/31 : paragraph 50
• Directive 2000/31 -A12 : paragraph 31
• Directive 2000/31 -A13 : paragraph 31
• Directive 2000/31 -A14 : paragraphs 4, 22, 31
• Directive 2000/31 -A14P1 : paragraphs 23, 25, 27
• Directive 2000/31 -A14P1LA : paragraph 20
• Directive 2000/31 -A14P3 : paragraph 24
• Directive 2000/31 -A15P1 : paragraphs 1, 5, 20, 21, 31, 33, 34, 37, 38, 42, 44, 47, 48, 53
• Directive 2000/31 -A18 : paragraph 27
• Directive 2000/31 -A18P1 : paragraphs 6, 26, 29, 44, 49
• Directive 2000/31 -C6 : paragraph 3
• Directive 2000/31 -C7 : paragraph 3
• Directive 2000/31 -C9 : paragraph 3
• Directive 2000/31 -C10 : paragraph 3
• Directive 2000/31 -C40 : paragraph 3
• Directive 2000/31 -C41 : paragraphs 3, 43, 44
• Directive 2000/31 -C45 : paragraphs 3, 24
• Directive 2000/31 -C46 : paragraph 3
• Directive 2000/31 -C47 : paragraphs 3, 34
• Directive 2000/31 -C48 : paragraph 3
• Directive 2000/31 -C52 : paragraphs 3, 28
• Directive 2000/31 -C58 : paragraphs 3, 51
• Directive 2000/31 -C60 : paragraphs 3, 51

Operative part

• Interprets : Directive 2000/31
• Interprets : Directive 2000/31 -A15P1

Opinion

• Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2007), Article 1 : point 89
  
• Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2007), Article 7 : points 89, 102
  
• Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2007), Article 8 : point 89
  
• Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2007), Article 11 : point 65
  
• Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2007), Article 16 : point 63
  
• Directive 95/46 : point 79
  
• Directive 2000/31 : points 7, 28, 33, 34, 46, 52, 82
  
• Directive 2000/31 -A01P5LB : point 90
  
• Directive 2000/31 -A12 : point 47
  
• Directive 2000/31 -A14 : points 4, 29 - 31
  
• Directive 2000/31 -A14P1 : points 5, 32
  
• Directive 2000/31 -A14P1LA : points 22, 37, 38
  
• Directive 2000/31 -A14P1LB : point 37
  
• Directive 2000/31 -A14P3 : points 5, 32, 39 - 41, 51
  
• Directive 2000/31 -A15 : points 4, 104
  
• Directive 2000/31 -A15P1 : points 3, 6, 22, 24, 26, 35, 36, 40, 41, 43, 50, 51, 75, 88, 93, 105, 107 - 109
  
• Directive 2000/31 -A18 : point 41
  
• Directive 2000/31 -C42 : point 29
  
• Directive 2000/31 -C47 : points 41, 49
  
• Directive 2004/48 : point 43
  
• Regulation 864/2007 -A01P2 : point 78
  
• Regulation 1215/2012 : points 82, 83, 85, 91
  
• Regulation 1215/2012 -A35 : point 84
  
• Brussels Convention 1968 : point 85
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -281/02 -N26 : point 85
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -275/06 -N68 : point 34
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -236/08 -N112 : point 29
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -236/08 -N113 : point 29
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -324/09 -N143 : point 38
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -324/09 -N181 : point 49
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -324/09 : points 68, 72
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -324/09 -N139 : points 35, 43
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -324/09 -N140 : point 49
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -324/09 -N141 : point 45
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -324/09 -N144 : points 35, 42, 43, 45
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -509/09 -N43 : point 82
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -509/09 -N44 : point 82
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -509/09 -N48 : points 84, 85
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -509/09 -N51 : point 85
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -509/09 -N52 : point 85
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -70/10 -N36 : point 35
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -70/10 -N40 : point 35
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -360/10 -N27 : point 30
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -360/10 -N37 : point 35
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -360/10 -N38 : point 35
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -360/10 -N45 : point 49
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -617/10 -N19 : point 89
  
• Court of Justice - Order C -466/11 -N19 : point 92
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -314/12 -N99 : point 102
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -314/12 -N100 : point 102
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -314/12 -N101 : point 102
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -314/12 -N57 : point 65
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -314/12 -N58 : point 102
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -314/12 -N59 : point 102
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -314/12 -N60 : point 102
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -314/12 -N61 : point 102
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -314/12 -N62 : point 102
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -314/12 -N63 : point 102
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -484/14 : point 33
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -484/14 -N132 : point 47
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -559/14 -N49 : point 65
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -559/14 -N50 : point 65
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -610/15 -N67 : point 31
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -610/15 -N68 : point 31
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -610/15 -N69 : point 102
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -610/15 -N70 : point 102
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -610/15 -N71 : point 102
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -610/15 -N72 : point 102
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -119/15 -N40 : point 65
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -194/16 -N38 : point 85
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -194/16 -N44 : points 83, 96
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -194/16 -N47 : point 85
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -149/17 -N37 : point 102
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -149/17 -N38 : point 102
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -149/17 -N39 : point 102
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -507/17 -N47 : point 79
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -507/17 -N55 : points 79, 89
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -507/17 -N60 : point 99
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -507/17 -N62 : point 79
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -507/17 -N76 : point 79
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -507/17 -N77 : point 79
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -149/17 -N44 : point 102
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -149/17 -N45 : point 102
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -149/17 -N46 : point 102
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -149/17 -N47 : point 102
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -521/17 -N51 : point 32
  

Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

• 10/01/2018

Date of the Opinion

• 04/06/2019

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

03/10/2019

References

Publication in the Official Journal

Judgment: OJ C 413 from 09.12.2019, p.5

Application: OJ C 104 from 19.03.2018, p.21

Name of the parties

Glawischnig-Piesczek

Notes on Academic Writings

1. Spindler, Gerald: Weltweite Löschungspflichten bei Persönlichkeitsrechtsverletzungen im Internet, Neue juristische Wochenschrift 2019 p.3274-3277 (NL)
2. Lysander, Michael ; Friedrich, Roman: Datenschutz : Hosting-Anbieter haben ehrverletzende Kommentare zu löschen, Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 2019 p.942-946 (DE)
3. Specht-Riemenschneider, Louisa: EuGH: Löschung beleidigender Äuβerungen auf Facebook, Multimedia und Recht 2019 p.798-802 (DE)
4. Holznagel, Daniel: Verpflichtung von Host-Providern zum Auffinden und Löschen wort - und sinngleicher Verletzungen, Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht 2019 p.910-913 (DE)
5. Dommering, E.J.: Nederlandse jurisprudentie ; Uitspraken in burgerlijke en strafzaken 2019 nº 48/49 p.7206-7208 (NL)
6. Klicka, Thomas: Der örtliche Wirkungsbereich gerichtlicher Löschungsanordnungen im Lichte des E des EuGH C-18/18 Glawischnig-Piesczek/Facebook Ireland, Medien und Recht 2019 p.270-277 (DE)
7. Harvey, Riana E.: Host providers may be subject to obligations resulting in content removal on a worldwide basis, says AG Szpunar, Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice 2019 p.836-838 (EN)
8. Simon, Denys: Communcations éléctroniques. Obligations des hébergeurs, Europe 2019 Décembre Comm. nº 12 p.47-48 (FR)
9. Cavaliere, Paolo: Glawischnig-Piesczek v Facebook on the Expanding Scope of Internet Service Providers’ Monitoring Obligations: case note, European Data Protection Law Review 2019 Vol. 4 p. 573-578 (EN)
10. Paal, Boris P.: Anmerkung zu EuGH, Urteil v. 3. 10. 2019 – C-18/18 Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek ./. Facebook Ireland Limited., Juristenzeitung 2020 p. 92-96 (DE)
11. Keller, Daphne: Facebook filters, fundamental rights, and the CJEU’s Glawischnig-Piesczek ruling, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht INT 2020 p. 616-623 (EN)
12. Wery, Étienne: Arrêt « Glawischnig-Piesczek » : la Cour de justice met fin à la passivité quasi systématique des hébergeurs, Journal de droit européen 2020 nº 2 p. 65-68 (FR)
13. Heldt, Amélie P.: Pflicht zu weltweiter Löschung: konsequente oder ausufernde Auslegung? : Anmerkung zum Urteil des EuGH v. 3.10.2019, Rs. C-18/18 (Glawischnig-Piesczek), Europarecht 2020 p. 238-245 (DE)
14. Peyrou, Sylvie: Société de l’information, vie privée et protection des données à caractère personnel: des précisions attendues, Revue du droit de l'Union européenne 2020 nº 1 p. 210-219 (FR)
15. Esposito, Fabrizio ; Hacker, Philipp: Facebook’s liability under the E-Commerce Directive: Judgment in Case C-18/18Glawischnig-Piesczek, European Review of Contract Law 2020 Vol. 16 (1) p.216-219 (EN)
16. Donk, Berdien B E van der: How dynamic is a dynamic injunction? : an analysis of the characteristics and the permissible scope of dynamic injunctions under European Law after CJEU C-18/18 (Glawischnig-Piesczek), Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice 2020 p. 602-616, (EN)
17. Hiltunen, Miikka: EUT:n ratkaisu Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek v. Facebook Ireland Ltd: tekoälyoptimismia perusoikeuksien kustannuksella? : C-18/18, Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek v. Facebook Ireland Ltd, Oikeus 2020 p. 105-115 (FI)
18. Geidel, Doreen Annette: Pflicht zur Löschung ehrverletzender Kommentare durch Hosting-Anbieter : zugleich Besprechung von EuGH, Urteil vom 3.10.2019, C-18/18, Glawischnig-Piesczek/Facebook Ireland, Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht 2021 p. 16-26 (DE)
19. Pierer, Joachim: Grenzen autornatisierter Rechtsdurchsetzung bei Verletzung von Personlichkeitsrechten nach EuGH C-18/18, Intelligente Systeme, intelligentes Recht 2021 p. 133-155 (DE)
20. Szpunar, Maciej: Teritorialitatea dreptului Uniunii în epoca globalizării : C-18/18, Revista românã de drept european 2021 nº 1 p. 22-36 (RO)
21. Zoi, Krokida: Towards a wider scope for the duty of care of host internet service providers: the case of Glawischnig-Piesczek v Facebook : C-18/18, European Intellectual Property Review 2021 p. 313-321 (EN)

Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

Oberster Gerichtshof - Austria

Subject-matter

• Freedom of establishment
  
• Freedom to provide services
  
• Approximation of laws
  
• Consumer protection
  

Provisions of national law referred to

Information not available

Provisions of international law referred to

Information not available

Procedure and result

• Reference for a preliminary ruling
  
• Reference for a preliminary ruling : case not proceeding to judgment
  

Formation of the Court

troisième chambre (Cour)

Judge-Rapporteur

Malenovský

Advocate General

Szpunar

Language(s) of the Case

• German
  

Language(s) of the Opinion

• French