Territorially Competent Court
All Media Reports > All Media
Territorially Competent Court
Territorial Jurisdiction in Broadcast and Online Defamation, GDPR Extraterritoriality and Legal Consequences of Continued Publication (Italy–UK–EU)
Overview
This report examines the principle established by Italian Supreme Court judgment no. 27750/2025 concerning territorial jurisdiction in cases of broadcast defamation, its extension to digital and online media, and its applicability to cross‑border publications involving UK‑based editors. The analysis also addresses the automatic application of the GDPR’s extraterritorial scope and the legal consequences of continued publication under Italian law.
1. Italian Supreme Court: Jurisdiction Based on the Residence of the Injured Party
The Italian Supreme Court resolved a jurisdictional conflict between the Court of Taranto (residence of the injured party) and the Court of Monza (location of signal transmission). The Court reaffirmed a consolidated rule:
In broadcast defamation, territorial jurisdiction is determined by the place of residence of the injured party.
This principle derives from Article 30(5) of Law 223/1990, which overrides the general criteria of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Court held that reputational harm materialises where the injured party resides, not where the broadcast originates. This approach aligns with the Civil United Sections (judgment no. 21661/2009), which apply the same criterion to both television and online defamation.
2. Extension to Digital Media and Online Publications
Although the ruling concerns television broadcasting, its rationale applies directly to digital media. Online content is globally accessible regardless of server location or editorial infrastructure. As a result:
Reputational harm occurs where the injured party resides and where their social and professional identity is established.
This principle applies to:
- online news articles,
- digital archives,
- search‑engine indexing,
- republication on global platforms,
- cross‑border media dissemination.
3. Cross‑Border Publications: UK‑Based Editors and Italian Jurisdiction
Several publications referenced on this website originate from UK‑based editors. Despite the foreign location of the publishers, the harmful effects of the content occur in Italy, where the injured party resides. Therefore:
Italian jurisdiction is, in principle, competent because the damage is localised within Italian territory.
This approach is consistent with:
- Italian Supreme Court jurisprudence (criminal and civil),
- EU case law (eDate Advertising, Martinez),
- UK law (common law and the Defamation Act 2013 “serious harm” test).
Italy, the UK and the EU converge on the same criterion: jurisdiction follows the location of reputational harm.
4. Automatic Application of GDPR Article 3: Extraterritorial Scope
The scenario described on this website has already triggered the extraterritorial application of Article 3 GDPR / UK GDPR, which applies even when the controller is located outside the EU.
Maximum permitted quotation (two lines):
“This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the Union by a controller or processor not established in the Union…” “…where the processing activities are related to the offering of goods or services to such data subjects or to the monitoring of their behaviour.”
This applies because:
- the editors are established in the UK,
- the content is accessible from Italy (EU),
- personal data is processed (identity, contextual information),
- behaviour is monitored through indexing, analytics and tracking.
Thus, GDPR obligations apply extraterritorially, regardless of the publisher’s jurisdiction.
5. Legal Consequences Under Italian Law: Removal, Historical Damage and Ongoing Illegality
5.1 Removal Is a Mandatory Legal Obligation
Under Italian jurisdiction, the removal of defamatory content is:
a mandatory legal act, not a courtesy or voluntary collaboration.
Once the defamatory nature of a publication is established or formally contested, the editor is legally required to remove the content.
5.2 Removal Does Not Erase Historical Damage
Removing the content does not extinguish the harm suffered during the period of publication. Historical damage remains legally relevant and may be assessed independently of subsequent removal.
5.3 Continued Publication Constitutes an Ongoing Unlawful Act
If defamatory content remains accessible:
- the unlawful interference continues,
- the violation persists for as long as the content is available.
5.4 Persistence After Formal Notice May Constitute Aggravated Conduct
When publication continues after formal notices, procedural updates or cease‑and‑desist communications, Italian jurisprudence may interpret the conduct as:
aggravated, with potential intentional (dolo) connotations.
In such circumstances, continued dissemination may be treated as a deliberate perpetuation of harm rather than mere negligence.
6. Takeaways
- Italian Supreme Court: jurisdiction follows the residence of the injured party.
- Principle applies to television, digital media and online defamation.
- Cross‑border publications involving UK editors fall under Italian jurisdiction when harm occurs in Italy.
- GDPR Article 3 applies extraterritorially to UK‑based publishers processing EU personal data.
- Removal of defamatory content is a legal obligation under Italian law.
- Removal does not eliminate historical reputational damage.
- Continued publication is an ongoing unlawful act.
Persistence after formal notice may constitute aggravated, potentially intentional conduct.
