By Graham Smith, Of Counsel, Bird & Bird LLP, London, UK
The CJEU’s recent copyright decision in Anne Frank endorses state of the art geo-blocking as an effective way of shielding a website from the different copyright laws of another EU Member State. Although the result on the facts is welcome, the potential implications of the Court’s underlying reasoning are less so. At a principled level, the judgment creates post-Brexit divergence with the UK courts’ targeting approach to cross-border online copyright infringement.
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2025/10/eu-court-of-justice-213379_1920.jpg12751920Tobias Lutzihttps://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.pngTobias Lutzi2026-07-15 15:28:212026-07-15 15:28:21Copyright, Targeting and Geo-Blocking: The CJEU Stirs the Pot
The facts of the case (which was given the entirely fictitious name Idzinski) are eerily similar to those of the Court’s 2021 decision in Case C-800/19 Mittelbayrischer Verlag. Just like in that earlier case, they involved a claim by Polish claimants against a German media outlet regarding the correction of, and damages for, the publication of content that allegedly violated their personality rights, including their national dignity. Only two elements of the facts were different: first, the content complained of was broadcasted on television, in addition to being published online; second, the claimants were (1) a private person who was part of a Polish military unit during World War II, which the German broadcaster had allegedly portrayed as ‘anti-Semitic and nationalistic and as having collaborated with the Nazis in the Holocaust’, and (2) an association bringing together members of that unit.
After two decisions against the defendants (to varying degrees), the Polish Supreme Court had submitted two questions relating to the international jurisdiction of the Polish courts.
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2025/10/eu-court-of-justice-213379_1920.jpg12751920Tobias Lutzihttps://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.pngTobias Lutzi2026-06-18 22:47:262026-06-21 21:32:51Nothing to See Here: The CJEU’s Decision in Case C-232/25 Idzinski
On 23 April 2026, Advocate General Emiliou published his opinion on Case C-799/24 – Babcock Montajes S.A. v Kanadevia Inova Steinmüller GmbH. It adds another piece to the puzzle that is the CJEU’s broad interpretation of the term ‘judgment’ in the Brussels Ia Regulation. At the same time, the case highlights the persisting problems with procedural coordination under the regulation.
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2025/10/eu-court-of-justice-213379_1920.jpg12751920Tobias Lutzihttps://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.pngTobias Lutzi2026-04-24 09:33:582026-04-24 09:33:58Advocate General Emiliou’s Opinion on Case C-799/24: Res Judicata Effect Applies Despite Breach of Art 31(2) Brussels Ia
The next webinar in the Crossroads in Private International Law webinar series will be given by Prof. Csongor Nagy (University of Galway) on the topic “EU Law and Sports Arbitration: When Global and Regional Regimes Meet“.
The webinar is scheduled for 22 April 2026, 14:00 – 15:00 UTC.
More information about the event and registration is available here, at the webpage of the organiser – the Centre for Private International Law & Transnational Governance of the University of Aberdeen.
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2026/04/Crossroads_in_PIL.jpg484460Ivana Kundahttps://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.pngIvana Kunda2026-04-21 20:05:182026-04-21 20:06:50Crossroads in Private International Law Webinar with Prof. Csongor Nagy
By Luisa Cassar Pullicino and Krista Refalo, Ganado Advocates
In the preliminary reference Case C-77/24 Wunner (the Titanium Brace case), the CJEU was asked to determine whether a damages claim brought by a consumer directly against company directors for losses suffered from unlicensed online gambling fell within the scope of the Rome II Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 864/2007), or whether it was excluded under Article 1(2)(d) as a “non-contractual obligation arising out of the law of companies”.
The practical stakes were considerable. If Rome II applied, Article 4(1) would designate the law of the place where the damage occurred — which, for online gambling losses, would normally be the habitual residence of the consumer. If excluded, the applicable law would instead be determined by national conflict-of-laws rules, typically, the lex societatis.
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2025/10/eu-court-of-justice-213379_1920.jpg12751920Tobias Lutzihttps://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.pngTobias Lutzi2026-01-16 22:43:572026-01-16 22:45:05The Titanium Brace Tightens: Rome II and Director Liability after Wunner
On 9 October 2025, the CJEU, in Case C-540/24 (Cabris Investment), had to decide whether Art. 25 Brussels Ia applies to “an agreement conferring jurisdiction in which the contracting parties, who are domiciled in the United Kingdom and therefore (now) in a third State, agree that the courts of a Member State of the European Union are to have jurisdiction over disputes arising under that contract, falls within the scope of that provision, even if the underlying contract has no further connection with that Member State chosen as the place of jurisdiction.“
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2025/10/eu-court-of-justice-213379_1920.jpg12751920Tobias Lutzihttps://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.pngTobias Lutzi2025-10-13 20:49:152025-10-13 20:49:15CJEU, Case C-540/24, Cabris Investment: Jurisdiction Clause in Favour of EU Court is Subject to Art. 25 Brussels Ia even if both Parties are Domiciled in the Same Third State
In its decision of 20 December 2023 (Case No. XII ZB 117/23), the German Federal Supreme Court has referred three questions to the CJEU relating to the interpretation of Art. 8 (a), (b) of the Rome III Regulation. The following is a convenience translation of the German press release:
Facts of the Case:
The spouses, German nationals, married in 1989. Initially, they lived together in Berlin since 2006. In June 2017 , the couple deregistered their domicile from the German population register (Melderegister) and moved to Stockholm, where the husband was employed at the German embassy. They nonetheless maintained their rented apartment in Berlin so that they could return as soon as the husband’s posting in Sweden was completed. However, when in September 2019 the husband was once again transferred to the embassy in Russia, the parties changed their place of residence from Stockholm straight to Moscow, where the couple lived in a flat on the embassy compound. Both spouses hold diplomatic passports.
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png00Matthias Wellerhttps://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.pngMatthias Weller2024-01-24 15:09:272024-01-25 15:06:06German Federal Supreme Court refers questions to the CJEU relating to the concept of “habitual residence” under Art. 8 (a), (b) of the Rome III Regulation
Written by Eduardo Silva de Freitas (Erasmus University Rotterdam), member of the Vici project Affordable Access to Justice, financed by the Dutch Research Council (NWO), www.euciviljustice.eu.
Introduction
In the final weeks leading up to Christmas in 2023, the District Court of Amsterdam referred a set of questions to the CJEU (DC Amsterdam, 20 December 2023, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2023:8330; in Dutch). These questions, if comprehensively addressed, have the potential to bring clarity to longstanding debates regarding jurisdictional conflicts in collective actions. Despite being rooted in competition law with its unique intricacies, the issues surrounding the determination of online damage locations hold the promise of illuminating pertinent questions. Moreover, the forthcoming judgment is expected to provide insights into the centralization of jurisdiction in collective actions within a specific Member State, an aspect currently unclear. Recalling our previous discussion on the Dutch class action under the WAMCA in this blog, it is crucial to emphasize that, under the WAMCA, only one representative action can be allowed to proceed for the same event. In instances where multiple representative foundations seek to bring proceedings for the same event without reaching a settlement up to a certain point during the proceedings, the court will appoint an exclusive representative. This procedural detail adds an additional layer of complexity to the dynamics of collective actions under the WAMCA.
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png00Xandra Kramerhttps://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.pngXandra Kramer2024-01-18 08:09:512024-01-19 11:02:33Who can bite the Apple? The CJEU can shape the future of online damages and collective actions
