Take-Aways (AI)
  • ECJ deci­des that Art. 16 para. 1 of Regu­la­ti­on No. 44/2001 is not appli­ca­ble if a con­su­mer also sues for assi­gned claims of others.
  • The ECJ con­firms that a pri­va­te Face­book user reta­ins con­su­mer sta­tus under Art. 15 Regu­la­ti­on No. 44/2001 despi­te publi­ca­ti­ons, lec­tures and donations.
  • Con­se­quence: Schremss’ lawsu­it can still be heard befo­re the ori­gi­nal court with regard to his own claims.

Today, Thurs­day, the ECJ issued a Judgment in a preli­mi­na­ry ruling by the Austri­an Supre­me Court in the Schrems case pleases

In the ori­gi­nal pro­ce­e­dings, Schrems appeared befo­re the Austri­an courts as a plain­ti­ff on his own behalf (see­king, among other things, an injunc­tion against the pro­ce­s­sing of his data), but also on behalf of other con­su­mers who had assi­gned their claims to him. He estab­lished local juris­dic­tion on the basis of his sta­tus as a consumer.

The sub­ject of the pro­ce­e­dings befo­re the ECJ was the­r­e­fo­re the que­sti­on of whe­ther Max Schrems, under the EuGVO is aut­ho­ri­zed to act also for other Face­book users as their assi­gnee, and whe­ther Schrems can still be con­side­red a con­su­mer at all, alt­hough his liveli­hood is now based on Facebook.

The ECJ ans­we­red the first que­sti­on in the negative:

Artic­le 16(1) of Regu­la­ti­on No 44/2001 is to be inter­pre­ted as mea­ning that it No appli­ca­ti­on to an action brought by a con­su­mer in which the con­su­mer asserts in the forum not only his own claims but also claims brought by other con­su­mers domic­i­led in the same Mem­ber Sta­te, in other Mem­ber Sta­tes or in third count­ries. were assi­gned.

The second que­sti­on, on the other hand, was ans­we­red in the affirmative:

Artic­le 15 of Regu­la­ti­on (EC) No 44/2001 […] must be inter­pre­ted as mea­ning that a user of a pri­va­te Face­book account may not use the does not lose con­su­mer sta­tus within the mea­ning of this Artic­le, when he publishes books, gives lec­tures, ope­ra­tes web­sites, coll­ects dona­ti­ons, and has the claims of num­e­rous con­su­mers assi­gned to him so that he can assert them in court.

This means that Mr. Schrems’ lawsu­it can con­ti­n­ue to be heard on his behalf.