- 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-194/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — Bolagsupplysningen OÜ, Ingrid Ilsjan v Svensk Handel AB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 7(2) — Special jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Infringement of the rights of a legal person by the publication on the internet of allegedly incorrect information concerning that person and by the failure to remove comments relating to that person — Place where the damage occurred — Centre of interests of that person)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016CA0194
62016CA0194
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
11.12.2017
Official Journal of the European Union
C 424/4
(Case C-194/16) (<span class="super note-tag">1</span>)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 7(2) - Special jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict - Infringement of the rights of a legal person by the publication on the internet of allegedly incorrect information concerning that person and by the failure to remove comments relating to that person - Place where the damage occurred - Centre of interests of that person)
(2017/C 424/05)
Language of the case: Estonian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: Bolagsupplysningen OÜ, Ingrid Ilsjan
Defendant: Svensk Handel AB
Operative part of the judgment
1.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 legal person claiming that its personality rights have been infringed by the publication of incorrect information concerning it on the internet and by a failure to remove comments relating to that person can bring an action for rectification of that information, removal of those comments and compensation in respect of all the damage sustained before the courts of the Member State in which its centre of interests is located. When the relevant legal person carries out the main part of its activities in a different Member State from the one in which its registered office is located, that person may sue the alleged perpetrator of the injury in that other Member State by virtue of it being where the damage occurred.
2.Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that a person who alleges that his personality rights have been infringed by the publication of incorrect information concerning him on the internet and by the failure to remove comments relating to him cannot bring an action for rectification of that information and removal of those comments before the courts of each Member State in which the information published on the internet is or was accessible.
(<span class="note">1</span>) OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.
* * *
Language of the case: Estonian