Pojęcie „miejsce, w którym szkoda się urzeczywistniła” w przypadku naruszenia dóbr osobistych osoby prawnej poprzez publikację w Internecie rzekomo nieprawdziwych informacji dotyczących owej osoby prawnej
Concept of the “Place Where the Damage Occurred” in the Event of Infringement of the Personal Rights of a Legal Person by the Publication on the Internet of Allegedly False Information Relating to the Legal Person

Judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 17 October 2017 in Case C-194/16 Bolagsupplysningen OÜ, Ingrid Ilsjan v Svensk Handel AB

Summary/Abstract: The commentary intends to determine the meaning of the “place where the damage occurred”in cases of online infringement of personal rights of legal persons. The analysis is based on thejudgment of 17 October 2017, C-194/16, Bolagsupplysningen OÜ and Ingrid Ilsjan v Svensk HandelAB. The issues raised have been examined with the help of the most important judgmentsof the Court of Justice in recent years. First, an issue such as the plurality of personal rights inthe Internet space has been analysed. Moreover, considerations were focused on the protectionof personal rights of legal persons and analogies in the application of this protection, both tolegal and natural persons. The considerations were based on previous judgments of the Court,different from the judgment in question. This was followed by a critical consideration of theapplication of the Mosaic Rule in online personal infringement cases, which continues to posemany problems in cross-border cases relating to the determination of jurisdiction. However, thebulk of the analysis was carried out by examining the connecting factor of the centre of interestsof the allegedly injured person in order to define the concept of the place where the damageoccurred. The issue at stake has been analysed in terms of its superiority over other connectingfactors. It should be noted that the judgment on which this commentary is based is a noveltyin the analysed matter, thus constituting a breakthrough in the jurisprudence of the Court ofJustice. However, according to the conclusion of this paper, the commented ruling of the Courthas not dispelled all doubts related to the raised issue.

• Details
• Contents