Jurisdiction over cyber tort under the Brussels I Regulation

In a series of four recent cases, the European Court of Justice has devised a new jurisdictional framework for jurisdiction over cyber torts under art. 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 (‘Brussels I Regulation’). In these cases, the Court has been called to rethink its classical interpretation of this provision dating back to 1976. The cases concern respectively the online infringement of personality rights (eDate Advertising and Martinez), the online infringement of trademark (Wintersteiger), the online use of databases (Football Dataco), and the online infringement of copyright (Pinckney). In the meantime, the Brussels I Regulation has been the subject of a recast. It has been replaced, as from 10 January 2015, by Regulation (UE) No. 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘Brussels I Bis Regulation’). Because of the removal of the specific rule of jurisdiction for alimonies (a matter which is now subject to a separate instrument), what was art. 5(3) of Brussels I has now become art. 7(2) of Brussels I Bis, though the wording of the provision has not been changed. This chapter presents an analytical overview of the matter, with a focus on the latest developments that stem from the four recent cases identified above. The purpose of the contribution is to identify the principles applied by the European Court of Justice in cyber torts cases. (Résumé éditeur