Abstract
A commentary to a CJEU decision in Hejduk of January 22, 2015, C-441/13, EU:C:2015:28. The article summarizes the recent case law and points out to possible practical application problems related to the criterion set by the commented decision for the selection of court which has jurisdiction to hear an action under art. 5(3) of Brussels Regulation (or art. 7(2) of the present Brussels Ibis regulation, respectively) for damages in respect of an infringement copyright by merely communicating works online.
Author is critical towards the CJEU decision, according to which in order for a court in a member state to have jurisdiction to hear an action for damages in respect of an infringement of copyright based purely upon the fact that the said website is accessible in the its territorial jurisdiction, whilst that court has jurisdiction only to rule on the damage caused in the Member State within which the court is situated.