The Regional Court of Cologne held that it had jurisdiction over an infringement on the internet with Swiss origin.
The Federal Court of Justice (judgment of 25.10.2016 – VI ZR 678/15) agreed with the case law of the Regional Court and Higher Regional Court of Cologne (judgment of 10.11.2015 – 15 U 121/15) in this respect.

This jurisdiction of the Regional Court of Cologne arose from Art. 5 No. 3 of the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters of October 30, 2007 (Lugano Convention, Lugano II).

The ruling indicates that the BGH is generally likely to take a positive view of international jurisdiction in Germany in the case of tortious acts on the internet.

Violation of privacy on the Internet – from Switzerland to Germany

The lawsuit was brought by Corinna Schumacher, a German citizen residing in Switzerland.
After her well-known husband was hospitalized following a serious skiing accident, a Swiss broadcaster published a video on its website.
It shows Ms. Schumacher in front of her husband’s hospital immediately after the accident.

Cologne Regional Court already confirmed international jurisdiction

After the video was published, Ms. Schumacher sued the Swiss broadcaster for injunctive relief before the Regional Court in Cologne.
The court assumed international jurisdiction and declared the action admissible in an interim judgment.
The Court of Appeal did not come to a different conclusion below either.

The BGH confirmed the Regional Court and the Higher Regional Court of Cologne.
Jurisdiction is primarily based on the Lugano Convention.
In the case of non-contractual claims for damages, Art. 5 No. 3 in conjunction with Art. 3 para. Art. 3 para.
1 Lugano Convention II contains a clear provision.

BGH: International jurisdiction for scattering offenses

In the case of so-called “stray offenses”, such as the unauthorized publication of photographs and violations of personal rights on the Internet, the injured party has the option of a nationally limited action for partial damages.

Instead of claiming total damages at the infringer’s place of establishment, the injured party can bring an action before the courts of any Member State in whose territory the content published on the internet was accessible.

Limitation of claims to the territory

Corinna Schumacher had expressly limited her request for injunctive relief to the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany, which is why Article 5 No. 3 Lugano Convention II applied without restriction.

The wording of Art. 5 No. 3 Lugano Convention II – “tortious act” or “an act assimilated to a tort” – also covers, in particular, personal injury or defamation (ECJ, judgment of 25.10.2011 – C-509/09).

Precise interpretation of the Lugano Convention necessary

According to the BGH, the standard is to be interpreted on the basis of the same principles as the provisions of the Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters of 27.09.1968.

In principle, the terms are to be interpreted autonomously, i.e. without recourse to the lex fori or lex causae (law of the state in which the claim is made).
First and foremost, the system and the objective of the Lugano Convention must be considered.

…
Art. 5 Nr. 3 der Verordnung (ist) dahin auszulegen (…), dass im Fall der Geltendmachung einer Verletzung von Persönlichkeitsrechten durch Inhalte, die auf einer Website veröffentlicht worden sind, die Person, die sich in ihren Rechten verletzt fühlt, die Möglichkeit hat, entweder bei den Gerichten des Mitgliedstaats, in dem der Urheber dieser Inhalte niedergelassen ist, oder bei den Gerichten des Mitgliedstaats, in dem sich der Mittelpunkt ihrer Interessen befindet, eine Haftungsklage auf Ersatz des gesamten entstandenen Schadens zu erheben.
Anstelle einer Haftungsklage auf Ersatz des gesamten entstandenen Schadens kann diese Person ihre Klage auch vor den Gerichten jedes Mitgliedstaats erheben, in dessen Hoheitsgebiet ein im Internet veröffentlichter Inhalt zugänglich ist oder war.
Diese sind nur für die Entscheidung über den Schaden zuständig, der im Hoheitsgebiet des Mitgliedstaats des angerufenen Gerichts verursacht worden ist.

Even if the broadcaster is a state-owned company, it cannot invoke state immunity.
The image reporting challenged by Ms. Schumacher did not concern a sovereign act (acta iure imperii) but was merely a dispute under private law.

Unlawful acts committed on the Internet can often be prosecuted in Germany

In the case of stray offenses, i.e. in cases in which unlawful acts were committed on the Internet, the German courts now have local jurisdiction.
However, this jurisdiction only applies in cases in which the claim is limited to the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany.

This step by the BGH means that in future it will be far easier to pursue national injunctive relief claims without having to enter the waters of foreign courts.
Of course, this case law does not only apply to infringements of personal rights, but also to copyright infringements.