Judges M Safjan (Rapporteur), D Šváby
Advocate General H Saugmandsgaard Øe
The claimant, Ms Éva Nothartová, brought a claim in the Hungarian courts, concerning an alleged infringement of her image and phonogram rights by the defendant, Mr Sámson József Boldizsár, who counterclaimed for damages before the referring court, on the ground, inter alia, that the original application had the effect of restricting the publication of intellectual creations on the website “YouTube”. The counterclaim did not arise from the same facts on which the original claim was based, within the meaning of article 8(3) of Council and Parliament Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012. Consequently, the referring court considered that if article 8(3) was the only provision applicable to counterclaims, it did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the counterclaim. If, on the other hand, article 8(3) applied only to counterclaims arising from the same contract or facts on which the original claim was based, the referring court took the view that it would nevertheless have jurisdiction, pursuant to article 7(2) of that Regulation, to adjudicate on the counterclaim brought by the defendant. Accordingly, the Hungarian court stayed the proceedings and referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling a question on the interpretation of article 8(3) of the Regulation.
On the reference—
Held, in circumstances such as those in the present case, the court had to determine whether, when examining a counterclaim seeking the payment of damages on the ground that the claimant was restricting the intellectual creation of the defendant, it was not required to assess the lawfulness of the actions on which the claimant based his claims, as the intellectual creation the use of which was, according to the defendant, being disrupted was the creation which the claimant considered to form the basis of the infringement of his right to his own image. If it was necessary to make such an assessment, article 8(3) of Council and Parliament Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 conferred jurisdiction on that court to adjudicate on the counterclaim. That said, the special jurisdiction referred to in article 8(3) did not exclude the other rules of jurisdiction laid down by the Regulation. Its use was discretionary, not only in relation to the general rule of jurisdiction laid down in article 4(1) of that Regulation, as applied in the present case, but also in relation to the other rules of special jurisdiction. The non-exclusive and discretionary nature of the rules of special jurisdiction flowed not only from the objectives and scheme of the Regulation, but also from the wording of article 8(3) itself, which specified that a person “may also” be sued pursuant to that provision, but not that he must be sued there only. Accordingly, article 8(3) of Regulation No 1215/2012 applied, not exclusively, in a situation in which the court with jurisdiction to hear and determine a claim alleging infringement of the claimant’s personality rights, on the ground that photographs were taken and videos recorded without his knowledge, was seised by the defendant bringing a counterclaim for compensation on the ground that the claimant was liable in tort, delict or quasi-delict for, inter alia, restrictions on his intellectual creations, which were the subject of the original application, where, when examining the counterclaim, that court was required to assess the lawfulness of the actions on which the applicant based its own claims (judgment, paras 24–27, 28, operative part).
L Inez Fernandes, M Figueiredo and P Lacerda, agents, for the Portuguese Government.
K Talabér-Ritz and M Heller, agents, for the European Commission.