## Facts

- An Estonian-incorporated company, Bolagsupplysningen OÜ, and its employee/shareholder sued a Swedish trade association company, Svensk Handel AB, over online statements labeling the company fraudulent and related user comments, including calls for violence.
- The content was published on Svensk Handel’s website in Swedish and was directed at Swedish consumers.
- Bolagsupplysningen demanded rectification and removal of the statements and comments; Svensk Handel refused.
- Although registered in Estonia, Bolagsupplysningen carried out the main part of its economic activity in Sweden and claimed its reputation was primarily affected there.
- Plaintiffs filed suit in Estonia seeking (1) rectification, (2) removal of the statements/comments, and (3) compensation for all damage, invoking Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 (Brussels I Recast).
- The Estonian Supreme Court referred questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning jurisdiction for online infringements of personality rights.

## Issues

1. Under Article 7(2) of Brussels I Recast, can a legal person sue for rectification, removal, and full damages in each Member State where the online content is accessible?
2. May a legal person sue for rectification, removal, and full damages in the Member State where its “center of interests” is located?
3. If courts where content is accessible have jurisdiction, does that jurisdiction extend to rectification/removal or only to damages limited to harm suffered in that State?

## Decision

- A legal person alleging online infringement of its personality rights may bring an action for rectification, removal, and compensation for all damage before the courts of the Member State where its center of interests is located.
- A claimant may not seek rectification and removal before the courts of each Member State where the content is or was accessible.
- Courts of Member States where the content is accessible may hear claims for damages only to the extent of harm suffered within that State (the “mosaic” approach).
- The “center of interests” of a legal person is the place where its commercial reputation is most firmly established, generally where it conducts the main part of its economic activities; the registered office is not conclusive.
- The referring court was instructed to determine, as a factual matter, where the company’s center of interests was located to resolve jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- Article 7(2) permits suit in tort/delict at the place where the harmful event occurred; for online violations of personality rights, that place includes the victim’s center of interests.
- The center-of-interests connecting factor applies to legal persons as well as natural persons; identifying the place of damage does not turn on whether the harm is material or non-material.
- Special jurisdiction under Article 7(2) is justified by a close connection between dispute and forum, supporting predictable jurisdiction and efficient adjudication.
- Claims seeking rectification and complete removal of online content are “single and indivisible” and must be brought only in a forum competent to rule on the entirety of the dispute (center of interests or defendant’s domicile).
- “Mosaic” jurisdiction remains available for damages-only claims in accessibility fora, but those courts may award only damages corresponding to harm within their territory.

## Conclusion

The Court held that, for online statements allegedly infringing a company’s personality rights, global corrective relief and full damages must be pursued in the defendant’s domicile or the company’s center of interests, while courts where the content is accessible may award only territorially limited damages.


Bolagsupplysningen OÜ v. Svensk Handel AB, Case C-194/16 (C.J.E.U. 2017)