The Riigikohus (the Supreme Court of Estonia) has referred a question to the CJEU (Court of Justice of the European Union) for a preliminary ruling, before deciding an appeal in cassation in which the appellant challenges the jurisdiction of the court.
In the case from which the appeal arises, Bolagsupplysningen OÜ, an Estonian company, has been conducting its business mainly in Sweden, despite maintaining its centre of interest in Estonia. At a certain point, Bolagsupplysningen OÜ was blacklisted on the Svenks Handel AB website, the Federation of Swedish Commerce, prompting, as a reaction, the publication of up to 1000 messages, causing detriment to the reputation of the Estonian company.
Based on these facts and the damage caused, Bolagsupplysningen OÜ filed a complaint with the Estonian courts against the Swedish federation, requesting:
- The deletion of the information and all the comments published on the federation’s website.
- Compensation of 56.634,99 euros to cover damages.
The case reached the Riigikohus, which, as we already mentioned, made a reference to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling on the application of Article 7.2 of the Brussels I Bis Regulation (Reg. No. 1215/2012), for cases where the ownership of damaged rights is a legal person and to clarify the definition of a “centre of interests” of a legal person, among other issues.
Regarding the first point, article 7.2 of the Regulation states the following:
“A person domiciled in a Member State may be sued in another Member State: … (2) in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur;”
In other words, in criminal or quasi-delict matters, the plaintiff may choose between the general rule of the domicile of the defendant in article 5 of the Regulation or the special rule of article 7.2 and file the claim in the place where the damage occurs or may occur, as specified in resolutions passed by the CJEU as the place where the person has his/her “centre of interest”.
Until then, this possibility had only been contemplated in relation to a natural person and not a legal person, therefore the Riingikohus referred to such a question before issuing a preliminary ruling. Finally, the opinion of the Advocate General Mr. Bobek (which will serve as the basis of the deliberation for the CJEU) was affirmative. Mr. Bobek says the application of different criteria is not justified, since such differences are based on the assumption that the natural person is “the weaker party” of the procedures. However, in his opinion, this situation has changed since we are now in the Internet era, and the publication of information online by natural persons is much easier than before.
Regarding the second point, in the opinion of the Advocate General, the place where the damages occurred may also be the same place where the reputation of the legal person has been most impaired, which in turn implies the place where the legal person has its centre of interests. In order to determine this, Mr. Bobek suggests that we should consider, among other elements, the turnover, the number of clients or the other professional contacts. To conclude, Mr. Bobek clarifies that legal persons may have several centres of interest, and to highlight this point, the plaintiff should have the option to sue in the place where the centre of interest that best suits his needs is located.
Thus, with the affirmative opinion of the Advocate General, the CJEU shall have to decide within a few days on the question referred for a preliminary ruling, although everything indicates that the opinion of the Court shall also be favourable, contributing to the equalization of the rules of jurisdiction regardless of whether a natural person or a legal person is involved.
Pedro Blanco
Vilá Abogados
For more information, please contact:
21st of July 2017
