Yasar v CCC Essen Digital GMBH and Another; Talibov v CCC Essen Digital GMBH and Another; Senen v CCC Barcelona Digital Services SLU and Another

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr. Justice Conleth Bradley
• Judgment Date: 11 April 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 248
• Docket Number: Record No. 2022/650P Record No. 2022/170P

Between:

Ugur Yasar

Plaintiff

and

CCC Essen Digital GmbH and Facebook Ireland Limited

Defendants

Between:

Abuzar Talibov

Plaintiff

and

CCC Essen Digital GmbH and Meta Platforms Ireland Limited

Defendants

Between:

Kyra Senen

Plaintiff

and

CCC Barcelona Digital Services S.L.U. and Facebook Ireland Limited

Defendants

[2025] IEHC 248

Record No. 2022/650P

Record No. 2022/4639P

Record No. 2022/170P

AN ARD-CHÚIRT

THE HIGH COURT

Personal injuries – Notices of proceedings – Jurisdiction – First defendants seeking orders setting aside notices of proceedings – Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the plaintiffs’ claims against the first defendants

Facts: The first defendants in each of the three cases, CCC Essen Digital GMBH (CCC Essen) and CCC Barcelona Digital Services S.L.U. (CCC Barcelona) (the CCC entities), sought orders pursuant to O. 12, r. 26 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 (the RSC 1986), setting aside notices of proceedings, i.e., personal injuries summonses brought by the plaintiffs, Messrs Yasar and Talibov and Ms Senen, on the grounds that the High Court did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the plaintiffs’ claims against them under the terms of Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 (Brussels I (recast)).

Held by the High Court (Bradley J) that, when balancing the parties’ counter positions, and the claims made in the plaintiffs’ personal injury summonses, through the prism of the three jurisdictional applications brought by the CCC entities (with their associated contextual limitations and constraints), having regard to the alleged tortious responsibility or duty of care owed by the second defendants in all three sets of proceedings, Facebook Ireland Ltd and Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd (Facebook/Meta), to the plaintiffs as the customer of the CCC entities compared to that owed in contract (or in tort) by CCC entities as the employer of the plaintiffs, such features would not suggest a divergence in the context of the same situation of fact and law such as to create a real risk of irreconcilable judgments in Ireland and Germany i.e. in their respective cases, Messrs Yasar and Talibov and Ms Senen had not demonstrated the requisite close connection and risk of irreconcilable judgments as per the requirements of Article 8(1) of Brussels I (recast). In relation to the additional matters in Ms Senen’s case which raised questions of interpretation, Article 23 of Brussels I (recast) does not, in Bradley J’s view, disapply Article 25 in a case where jurisdiction has been claimed based on Article 8(1). In relation to the additional matters in Mr Talibov’s case, Bradley J considered that the application to the Personal Injuries Assessment Board in Mr Talibov’s case did not mean that the Irish Court was first seised of the matter as that term is understood in Article 29 of Brussels I (recast).

Bradley J proposed making: (i) an order pursuant to O. 12, r. 16 of the RSC 1986 that the High Court did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine, pursuant to the terms of Article 8(1) of Brussels I (recast), the claims of Mr Yasar against CCC Essen; (ii) an order pursuant to O. 12, r. 16 that the High Court did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine, pursuant to the terms of Article 8(1), the claims of Mr Talibov against CCC Essen; and (iii) an order pursuant to O. 12, r. 16 that the High Court did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine, pursuant to the terms of Article 8(1), the claims of Ms Senen against CCC Barcelona.

Orders granted.

Appearances:

228. John Gordon SC, Robert Fitzpatrick SC and Ben Clarke BL appeared for the Plaintiffs in all three cases, instructed by Coleman Legal LLP.

229. Eoin McCullough SC and Hayley O'Donnell BL appeared for the Defendants in all three cases instructed by Arthur Cox LLP.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Conleth Bradley delivered on the 11 ^th day of April 2025

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION	3
Preliminary	4
Summary of the Issues	5
Summary of Mr. Yasar's case	6
The proceedings in Essen, Germany	7
BRUSSELS I (RECAST)	9
General overview	9
Section 2: Special Jurisdiction & Article 8 of Brussels I (recast)	12
Section 9: Articles 29 to 34 of Brussels I (recast)	17
DISCUSSION & DECISION	19
Guiding parameters	19
Article 8(1) issue: Yasar, Talibov & Senen	21
Identification of applicable principles	22
The concepts of “closely connected” and “irreconcilable judgments”	24
“Closely connected claims” & “avoiding the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings”	26
Arguments made on behalf of Mr. Yasar	28
Personal Injury Summons	29
Question of unique and comprehensive degree of control & risk of irreconcilable judgments	31
Proceedings in Ireland not reasonably foreseeable	33
Different legal bases & foreseeability	34
THE ADDITIONAL ISSUE IN MS. SENEN'S CASE	37
Overview	37
Summary of issues	37
Exclusive jurisdiction clauses & the lis penden rule	39
Article 29(1)	39
Article 29(2)	40
Article 29(3)	40
Article 30(1)	40
Article 30(2)	40
Article 30(3)	40
Article 31(1)	40
Article 31(2)	40
Article 31(3)	41
Article 31(4)	41
Article 32(1)	41
The lis pendens or first-in-time rule	41
Exception to the lis pendens rule	43
THE ADDITIONAL ISSUE IN MR. TALIBOV'S CASE	44
Preliminary	44
CONCLUSION	48
PROPOSED ORDER	49

INTRODUCTION

Preliminary

1 In each of these three cases, the first named Defendants (“CCC Essen” and “CCC Barcelona”) 1 seek orders pursuant to Order 12, rule 26 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 (as amended) (“the RSC 1986”), setting aside notices of proceedings, i.e., personal injuries summonses brought by the plaintiffs, Messrs. Yasar and Talibov and Ms. Senen, 2 on the grounds that the High Court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the plaintiffs' claims against them under the terms of Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 (“ Brussels I (recast)”).

2 This is a composite judgment in the three sets of proceedings.

Background

3 The CCC entities were contractually engaged by the second named Defendant in all three sets of proceedings (“Facebook/Meta”) for the purpose of recruiting and hiring personnel to work as content moderators of material on its platform, which provided web community online services.

4 Facebook/Meta is an Irish company; it has not disputed jurisdiction and has not participated in these motions.

5 Accordingly, persons employed by the CCC entities (such as the three plaintiffs) carried out content moderation services under contracts of employment with CCC Essen and CCC Barcelona and they had no express contract with Facebook/Meta.

6 The plaintiffs have sued their respective employers, CCC Essen and CCC Barcelona and have also sued Facebook/Meta and, as stated above, have sought damages in the form of a ‘Notice of Personal Injury Summons’.

7 In summary, the plaintiffs allege that in the course of their work as content moderators, they were exposed to excessively graphic and disturbing content on the Facebook/Meta platform, that inadequate support was provided to them for persons involved in work of that nature, and that they were subject to excessive pressure and levels of work.

8 The plaintiffs have issued their personal injury summons in Ireland, relying on Article 8(1) of Brussels I (recast).

9 In the three applications before me, the respective CCC entities have challenged the plaintiffs' jurisdiction to do so and contend that the proceedings should be heard in Germany and Spain.

10 The applications are representative of a wider number of cases which await their disposition. In this regard, the broader context of these proceedings involves approximately

30 cases which have issued against Facebook/Meta and against various other companies (some of which are Irish) who were engaged by Facebook/Meta to assist in its content moderation services. Of the 30 cases, about one third involve a co-defendant outside of Ireland, and approximately 20 cases involve a co-defendant in Ireland.

11 To summarise, it is common case that the plaintiffs had employment contracts as content moderators only with the first named defendants – the CCC entities: Mr. Yasar and Mr. Talibov were employed by CCC Essen (a German company); Ms. Senen was employed by CCC Barcelona (a Spanish company). It is also common case that the second named defendant, Facebook/Meta is domiciled in Ireland. The CCC entities dispute jurisdiction; Facebook/Meta has not disputed jurisdiction.

Summary of the Issues

12 Whilst there are issues common to all three cases, there are also important differences. As these differences and similarities are explored in greater detail in this judgment, for indicative purposes only at this juncture, I briefly paraphrase (and adapt) the summary referred to in the exchange of correspondence between the parties' solicitors on 26 ^th February 2024 3 which highlighted the differences in the plaintiffs' cases. The Article 8(1) Brussels I (recast) jurisdictional issue is common to all three cases.

13 In relation to Mr. Yasar, the letter of 26 ^th February 2024 stated that in this case “ personal injuries proceedings issued in Ireland against CCC Essen and Meta before the declaratory proceedings were issued in the Essen Labour Court. In [this case], the Essen Labour Court is awaiting a determination on the issue of the jurisdiction of the Irish Courts and [it raises] issues regarding Article 8 of Brussels I Regulation (Recast), which is potentially relevant to the Proceedings”.

14 In relation to Mr. Talibov, the letter of 26 ^th February 2024 stated that in “ these...