- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-251/20: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Gtflix Tv v DR (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 7(2) — Special jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Publication on the internet of allegedly disparaging comments concerning a person — Place where the harmful event occurred — Courts of each Member State in which content placed online is or has been accessible)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020CA0251
62020CA0251
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C 84/13
(Case C-251/20) (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 7(2) - Special jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict - Publication on the internet of allegedly disparaging comments concerning a person - Place where the harmful event occurred - Courts of each Member State in which content placed online is or has been accessible)
(2022/C 84/14)
Language of the case: French
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Gtflix Tv
Defendant: DR
Operative part of the judgment
Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a person who, considering that his or her rights have been infringed by the dissemination of disparaging comments concerning him or her on the internet, seeks not only the rectification of the information and the removal of the content placed online concerning him or her but also compensation for the damage resulting from that placement may claim, before the courts of each Member State in which those comments are or have been accessible, compensation for the damage suffered in the Member State of the court seised, even though those courts do not have jurisdiction to rule on the application for rectification and removal.
(<span class="oj-super">1</span>) OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.
* * *