Anonymous online insults are particularly distressing for those affected. Anyone wishing to assert claims for injunctive relief or damages must first know who is behind an unlawful post. The Austrian Supreme Court (OGH) had to address the question of whether an Irish-based communication platform could be sued for disclosure in Austrian courts.
A person living in Austria received numerous crudely degrading messages via a communication platform. The messages also contained sexual content and severely violated the person's dignity. The platform was operated by an Irish company that offers its services within the European Union.
The affected party wanted to take legal action against the authors of the messages. For this, she needed the names and addresses of the users. She therefore requested information from the platform operator, pursuant to Section 13 Paragraph 3 of the E-Commerce Act (ECG), regarding the identity of the senders. The platform operator refused to provide this information, arguing, among other things, that Austrian courts lacked international jurisdiction.
This raised a practically important question: Do those affected in such cases have to sue abroad, or can they request information at the center of their interests in Austria?
The Austrian Supreme Court (OGH) affirmed the jurisdiction of Austrian courts. According to the established case law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), a claim for information under Section 13 Paragraph 3 of the E-Commerce Act (ECG) is to be classified as a tort within the meaning of Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (Recast), as it aims at liability for a statutory obligation that exists independently of any contractual relationship. Since the refusal to provide information hinders the prosecution of serious violations of personal rights, a deviation from the country-of-origin principle pursuant to Section 22 of the E-Commerce Act (ECG) is permissible to protect human dignity.
The place of jurisdiction for determining the effectiveness of the refusal to provide information is located at the center of the affected person's interests. This establishes the jurisdiction of the court at the plaintiff's place of residence or habitual abode, since the detrimental effects of the withholding of information on the enforcement of rights are directly realized in their social environment.
The decision significantly strengthens legal protection against anonymous online attacks. Platforms can no longer simply hide behind their foreign headquarters in cases of serious violations of personal rights. Those affected should fully document unlawful messages: screenshots, links, usernames, timestamps, and platform data. Only in this way can a request for information be efficiently prepared.
Supreme Court 18.12.2025, 6 Ob 186/25h