Previous 1 / 8 Next

05/02/2020 62016CJ0498 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 25 January 2018 ( *1 ) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Articles 15 and 16 — Jurisdiction in respect of consumer contracts — Definition of ‘consumer’ — Assignment between consumers of claims against the same trader or professional) In Case C-498/16, REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court, Austria), made by decision of 20 July 2016, received at the Court on 19 September 2016, in the proceedings Maximilian Schrems v Facebook Ireland Limited, THE COURT (Third Chamber), composed of L. Bay Larsen, President of the Chamber, J. Malenovský, M. Safjan (Rapporteur), D. Šváby and M. Vilaras, Judges, Advocate General: M. Bobek, Registrar: M. Aleksejev, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 19 July 2017, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of: – Mr Schrems, by W. Proksch and H. Hofmann, Rechtsanwälte, – Facebook Ireland Limited, by N. Pitkowitz, M. Foerster and K. Struckmann, Rechtsanwälte, – the Austrian Government, by G. Eberhard and G. Kunnert, acting as Agents, – the German Government, by T. Henze, R. Kanitz and M. Hellmann, acting as Agents, – the Portuguese Government, by M. Figueiredo, L. Inez Fernandes and S. Duarte Afonso, acting as Agents, – the European Commission, by M. Wilderspin and M. Heller, acting as Agents, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 14 November 2017, gives the following Judgment 1 The present request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 15 and 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1). 2 The request has been made in proceedings between Mr Maximilian Schrems, who is domiciled in Austria, and Facebook Ireland Limited, which has its registered office in Ireland, concerning applications seeking declarations and an injunction, disclosure, production of accounts and payment in the amount of EUR 4000 in respect of private Facebook accounts of both Mr Schrems and seven other persons who assigned to him their claims relating to those accounts. Legal context Regulation No 44/2001 ﬁle:///Users/nerissa/Downloads/Columbia CSV/Schrems v Facebook Ireland.htm 1/8

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Maximilian Schrems v. Facebook Ireland Limited

Case Law

Country

Austria

Country Location

Latitude: 47.73397739577197

Longitude: 14.591648988772429

Country Location (linked Case Law): Austria

Decision Date: Jan 25, 2018

Case Status: Closed

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Motion Granted/Motion Denied

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Advisory Opinion/Preliminary Ruling

Keywords

Data Protection and Retention
Privacy
Social Media

Judicial Body: Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)

Court Name: Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)

Case Number: C‑498/16

Case Summary: The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), in a preliminary ruling, held that a privacy rights activist and campaigner, Max Schrems, could not lose his status as a “consumer” in his contractual relationship with Facebook because of his activities in campaigning and litigating against Facebook. This meant that he should be able to rely on the European Union’s special rules on jurisdiction in cases concerning “consumers” (Regulation 44/2001), which allow “consumers” to sue the other party to their consumer contract before their own domestic courts (rather than the courts where the other party is based). This was relevant to Mr. Schrems as he wanted to bring data protection claims against Facebook Ireland before the Austrian courts. The preliminary ruling followed a request from the Austrian Supreme Court to the CJEU. The CJEU reasoned that activities such as publishing books, giving lectures, operating websites, fundraising and being assigned the claims of numerous consumers for the purpose of their enforcement in judicial proceedings did not entail the loss of a private Facebook account user’s status as a “consumer”. However, the CJEU did not agree that Regulation 44/2001 could be interpreted as giving the Austrian courts jurisdiction to hear, at the same time as considering Mr. Schrem’s personal claim against Facebook, the similar claims of third parties that had been assigned to him. Although this case hinders the ability of one person to bring class action consumer rights cases before their domestic courts, the decision promotes freedom of expression by clarifying that a person will not be deprived of certain consumer rights protections under EU law simply because they publicly campaign against the party that they are in a consumer contract with.

Case Significance: The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Related Caselaw (self)

Maximilian Schrems v. Facebook Ireland Limited

Source URL: Columbia Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

CIPIT

Date Updated: May 14, 2024

Primary Documents

Schrems v Facebook Ireland.pdf
English
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

Maximilian Schrems v. Facebook Ireland Limited

Primary Documents

Notifications