Brussels I: Recent Developments in the Interpretation of Special Jurisdiction Provisions for Internet Torts

The paper deals with recent rulings of the European Court of Justice regarding the international jurisdiction of European courts in connection with infringements over the Internet. The aim of the paper is to illustrate a shift in the judicature of the Court and the need for a recast of the special jurisdiction provisions in the Brussels I Regulation. The main focal point is the ruling in the case C-170/12 Peter Pinckney v KDG Mediatech AG, which contain s two surprising con clusions . Firstly, the intentions of the alleged infringer to target a certain jurisdiction are not to be taken into consideration. The decisive connecting factor is solely the fact that the harmful event may occur within the jurisdiction of the court. Secondly, the actions of a n independent third party can now establish the jurisdiction for a suit against the alleged infringer. Th is has been the subject of two other recent cases C-387/12 Hi Hotel HCF Sparl v Uwe Spoering and C-360/12 Coty Germany GmbH v F i rst Note Perfumes NV. In both of these cases the sole actions of the alleged infringer would not suffice to establish the jurisdiction of the court in question. T he paper tries to evaluate these rulings in light of procedural fairness and the traditional interpretation od special jurisdiction provisions.