An action was brought before the Polish courts against the depiction of a Polish clandestine military unit in a German television series set during World War II as anti-Semitic and nationalistic. The applicants sought remedies for the breach of their personality rights resulting from both the television broadcasting of the series and its online dissemination. In the Idziski judgment of 18 June 2026, the Court of Justice addressed the international jurisdiction of Member State courts for claims that seek compensation for all harm caused by these broadcasts.
Background to the case
An organisation defending the memory of the clandestine unit depicted in the television series and one of the former members of the unit brought a claim before the Polish courts against the German co-producers of the series, seeking, inter alia, an order requiring the co-producers to issue an apology on television channels that broadcast the series and pecuniary damages.
Eventually, the case was heard before the Polish Supreme Court which referred preliminary questions on whether Polish courts could award compensation for the entirety of the damage resulting from television and online broadcast in several Member States.
Findings of the Court of Justice
As regards the international jurisdiction for damage resulting from a television broadcast
First, the Court clarifies the question on the jurisdiction of the Polish courts to hear an action seeking compensation for the entirety of the damage.
As the Brussels I Regulation applied ratione temporis at the moment the case was brought before the national judge, the Court does not yet apply the Brussels I bis Regulation. The Court’s interpretation of the Brussels I Regulation in the case at hand, however, is relevant for the corresponding articles of the Brussels I bis Regulation.
The Court recalls that under the Brussels I Regulation, as a general rule, the courts of the Member States in which the defendant is domiciled have jurisdiction to hear such a claim.
The special rules on jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict and quasi-delict, however, allow victims of an international breach of personality rights to bring an action against the producer of the content before the courts of each Member State in which the content was broadcast on television or where the victim suffered reputational injury (currently enshrined in Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation).
The Court states that this jurisdiction is circumscribed to actions relating to the damage caused in the Member State concerned. As a result, these courts do not have jurisdiction to award compensation for damage caused outside this Member State.
The Court emphasises that television broadcasts are regionally limited, unlike online dissemination that makes content available instantly and worldwide. In this respect, the Court acknowledges that there could be disadvantages to this principle, as different courts may rule on various aspects of the same dispute where audiovisual content is broadcast both on television and online.
As regards the question which applicants could be identified by the series and seek compensation for the entirety of the damage
Second, the Court treats the question whether the association defending the memory of the unit and/or the unit’s former member may seek compensation for the entirety of the damage resulting from the online broadcast.
The Court recalls that this is only possible if the content contains objective and verifiable elements to directly or indirectly identify the claimant.
In the case at issue, the Court finds that the unit is directly identified by the series. By contrast, the former member could be linked to the persons that were part of this unit, but this is not sufficient to enable him to be identified as an individual by the series.
Therefore, only the association defending the interests of the unit can seek compensation for the entirety of the damage resulting from the online broadcast.
As regards the pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation that can be sought before a court that rules on the damage suffered in the Member State concerned
Third, the Court rules on the specific remedies that may be awarded by a court whose jurisdiction is limited to the damage suffered as a result of a television or online broadcast in the Member State where it is established.
The Court finds that such a court may rule on monetary compensations for the non-material damage suffered in that Member State. It may also rule on non-monetary remedies for damage caused by a television broadcast such as a rectification or an apology limited to the territory of the Member State. By contrast, an action seeking a non-pecuniary compensation such as an online rectification that aims to remedy the damage from the online dissemination may only be ordered by a court that rules on the entirety of the claim – in principle the one based in the member state where the defendant is domiciled.
Final remarks
It is often said that a ruling of the Court of Justice “clarifies” a certain legal question. Some rulings, however, might rather add to the complexity of a matter. In his Opinion of 5 February 2026, Advocate General Rantos describes the approach of the Court to jurisdiction in cross-border cases involving the breach of personality rights as the “mosaic” approach. In the ruling at issue, the Court adds a new piece to this mosaic, in particular concerning infringements that result from both television broadcasting and online dissemination.
The Court notes that this approach may lead to fragmentation of disputes. Indeed, if a victim seeks compensation for harm caused by a television and/or online broadcast before the courts of the Member State of his or her centre of interest or of the place where the injury was suffered, the victim can only obtain compensation for the harm linked to this Member State.
Yet, it must be recalled that this fragmentation can be avoided. It remains possible to seek compensation for the entirety of the damage caused by a breach of personality rights before the courts of the Member State either of the defendant’s domicile or the place where the event giving rise to the damage occurred. Although this might force a victim to bring an action before a court of another Member State than his own, it would have the advantage for the victim to obtain full compensation for all harm suffered.