Joris DeeneAnyone who feels offended by a television series broadcast in several countries would prefer to bring the case before a court in their own country. On June 18, 2026, the Court of Justice (C-232/25) ruled that, in principle, this is not possible: for a television broadcast, each national court retains jurisdiction only over damages occurring within its own territory, and the “center of interests” rule from internet case law does not apply. However, for online distribution, the Court does make a notable exception in favor of legal entities that defend a specific, closed group.
The facts
A former Polish soldier and a Polish association of former comrades-in-arms claimed that a television series produced by two German producers infringed on their personality rights. The series portrayed members of a Polish resistance group from World War II as anti-Semites and collaborators. It was broadcast on television in Germany starting in 2013 and subsequently in several other member states, including Poland, and was also available online.
The plaintiffs sued the producers in Polish court in 2013. Among other things, they sought public apologies from the television stations and websites involved, an announcement before each broadcast, and compensation for the individual. The producers contested the international jurisdiction of the Polish court, arguing that only German courts had jurisdiction. Following conflicting decisions at the trial court and appellate levels, the Polish Supreme Court referred questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the jurisdiction rule regarding torts.
The decision
The Court applies Article 5, paragraph 3 Brussels I Regulation that permits the plaintiff to file a summons not only at the defendant’s place of residence but also in the court of the place where the tortious act occurred. That place includes both the location of the event causing the damage and the location where the damage occurred. The case revolves around that latter connecting factor.
The Court draws a clear distinction between television and the Internet. For a television broadcast, the traditional “mosaic rule” from the Shevill rulingapplies: The court of any Member State where the series was broadcast and where the damage to reputation is felt has jurisdiction, but in each case only with respect to the damage occurring within its own territory. The broader rule set forth in The eDate Ruling, which allows the injured party to claim full damages before the court of the center of his interests, does not apply here. The Court explains that a television broadcast is, by its very nature, location-specific: it is limited to the signal’s reception area and lacks the global, instantaneous availability that characterizes internet content. According to the Court, geoblocking, geolocation, or simultaneous online and offline broadcasting do not alter this.
The situation is different when it comes to online dissemination. In that context, the “center of interests” rule does apply, but only if the content contains objective and verifiable information that directly or indirectly identifies the individual concerned, as the Court previously ruled in the Mittelbayerischer Verlag ruling. For the former soldier, that condition is not met: the series is fiction and does not refer to real people. The mere fact that he belongs to a recognizable group is not enough to identify him personally.
The Court reaches a different conclusion regarding the association. The resistance group itself is unambiguously and directly identified by the series as a closed group with a defined membership. The association, whose primary purpose is to defend the interests of that very group, may rely on this. The court in the center of its interests therefore does have jurisdiction over its full damages arising from the online distribution, because it is foreseeable to the producers that they will be sued in that Member State.
Regarding the second question, the Court rules that the “mosaic” judge, who has jurisdiction only over local damages, may nevertheless hear divisible claims: compensation for damages and non-pecuniary measures limited to the territory of the state in which the action is brought, such as an apology on national television or a warning prior to a national broadcast. A claim for the correction or removal of online content, on the other hand, is indivisible and may only be brought before the court with full jurisdiction.
Legal analysis and interpretation
The Court upholds the mosaic rule and resists pressure to scrap it
The referring court had explicitly invited the Court to set aside the distinction between television and the internet, arguing that streaming, video-on-demand, and simultaneous online broadcasts have eroded the difference between the media. In legal scholarship as well, the mosaic approach has been criticized for years due to the risk of fragmentation of the dispute and conflicting rulings. The Court stands firm. It points out that Article 5(3) is an exception to the general rule regarding the defendant’s place of residence and must therefore be interpreted strictly, and that the plaintiff always retains the option to claim the full amount of damages in a single action, either before the court of the defendant’s domicile or before the court of the place where the event causing the damage occurred. Furthermore, the fact that the judgment concerns a set of facts dating from before 2015 gave the Court of Appeal an additional reason to disregard subsequent technological developments.
The legal entity exception: a refinement in which the Court does not follow its Advocate General
The most contentious aspect of the ruling is the differing treatment of natural persons and legal entities in cases of online dissemination. In his opinion of February 5, 2026, Advocate General Rantos had proposed that both claims be dismissed: in his view, neither the former soldier nor the association was identifiable as an individual, partly because the association has approximately 5,000 members and its seat could have been located in any Member State. The Court follows this reasoning with respect to the natural person, but not with respect to the legal entity. The decisive factor is not the size of the membership base, but the fact that the series directly and unambiguously identifies the closed group itself, and that the association’s specific purpose is to defend that group. Consequently, it is foreseeable for the producers that they will be sued before the court of the center of that association’s interests. In doing so, the Court subtly shifts the test: from the identifiability of the plaintiff to the identifiability of the group whose interests the legal entity represents. This is a significant nuance to the Mittelbayerischer Verlag case law, which allows an interest group to centralize the full amount of damages in a jurisdiction where its individual members would not be able to do so.
A conflict with the principle of foreseeability remains
The reasoning is based primarily on foreseeability for the broadcaster. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the Court accepts for a legal entity what it rejects for a natural person, even though the underlying content is identical. In both cases, the producers could just as easily have foreseen that the group to which the series relates is based in Poland. The decision to grant exclusive jurisdiction solely to the association is defensible on the grounds that its registered office provides a more stable and predictable point of reference than the center of an individual member’s interests; however, it does reveal a new distinction that will require clarification in future cases: when is a group sufficiently “closed,” and when does a legal entity represent that group sufficiently exclusively?
Specifically, what does this mean?
For anyone who feels hurt by a program that crossed the line. The choice of court also determines how much damages you can recover. If you want to claim your full damages in a single proceeding, the safest route is to file in the court of the producer’s place of residence or the location where the series was produced. If you choose a court in your own country, you must keep in mind that, in the case of a mere television broadcast, that court can only award damages within the national territory. In that case, you should also explicitly limit your claim to that territory; otherwise, you risk a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
For associations and advocacy groups. The ruling opens up a valuable avenue. A legal entity that represents the interests of a clearly defined, closed group may, in cases of online dissemination, centralize its entire claim before the court of its registered office, even if the individual members would not be able to do so. Anyone considering legal action would be well advised to carefully document its statutory purpose and its connection to the targeted group, as these very elements were decisive for the Court.
For producers, broadcasters, and publishers. The legal distinction between television and the internet remains intact, despite technological convergence. A television broadcast alone exposes you only to mosaic claims, limited to local damages per country. However, as soon as the same content is available online without geoblocking and targets an identifiable person or a well-defined group, you can be held liable for the full amount of damages in the Member State where the center of interests is located. A well-thought-out territorial exploitation and licensing policy, with a focus on geoblocking, therefore remains a practical tool for managing litigation risk.
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Can I sue a foreign broadcaster or producer in my own country if a series damages my reputation?
Yes, but the scope differs. In the case of a television broadcast, a court in your own country can only award damages for losses incurred within its national territory. If you want to recover your full damages in a single proceeding, you must file your case with the court in the defendant’s place of residence or in the place where the content was produced.
What is the difference between damages arising from television and damages arising from the Internet in terms of jurisdiction?
For television, the mosaic rule applies: each national court has jurisdiction only over local damages. For the internet, the injured party may claim full damages before the court in the center of his or her interests, provided that the content directly or indirectly identifies him or her or the group he or she represents.
Is it enough that I belong to a group that is portrayed negatively in a series?
For a natural person, that is generally not sufficient: you must be identifiable as an individual. For a legal entity whose primary purpose is to defend a specific, closed group, it may be sufficient for the series to unambiguously identify that group.
Conclusion
The ruling confirms the traditional distinction in European law on jurisdiction regarding personality rights: a geographically limited television broadcast gives rise only to mosaic claims, whereas a globally accessible internet distribution allows the injured party to centralize their entire claim, provided there is sufficient identification. The real innovation lies in the refinement regarding legal entities: an interest group may rely on the identification of the closed group it represents, even when its individual members cannot. For those who produce, distribute, or fall victim to content, this reshapes the strategic landscape of forum selection.
Dutch 
English