“The Diary of Anne Frank”: ECJ classifies geoblocking as an effective technological protection measure under copyright law
1. Background
“The Diary of Anne Frank” is one of the most important historical accounts of the Holocaust. The version of the diary published in 1947 by Anne Frank’s surviving father, Otto Frank, has been in the public domain since the end of 2015. The situation is different, however, for the complete edition published in 1986, which contains previously unpublished passages. This version, published by the Anne Frank Fund, enjoys special protection as a so-called “posthumous work” (“editio princeps”), although the nature of this protection varies within the European Union. For instance, German copyright law, Section 71(3) of the German Copyright Act (UrhG) provides for a term of protection of just 25 years from publication. Consequently, the “new” complete edition is therefore already in the public domain in Germany. In the Netherlands, however, protection for posthumous works lasts for a total of 50 years; in the case of the complete edition published in 1986, this means protection continues until the end of 2036.
Against this background, the Anne Frank Foundation published a free academic edition of the diary in Dutch in 2021. The purpose of the Foundation – which is independent of the Anne Frank Fund – is to preserve the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam and to ensure the widest possible access to Anne Frank’s work. The publication was made available on a website hosted in Belgium, with access restricted via geoblocking to countries where the diary was already in the public domain.
Nevertheless, the Anne Frank Fund sought an injunction against the publication on the grounds that regional blocks could be circumvented very easily using VPNs (Virtual Private Networks).
2. Opinion of Advocate General Rantos
At the heart of the legal dispute between the Anne Frank Fund and the Anne Frank Foundation lies the question of whether making the complete edition of “The Diary of Anne Frank” available online constitutes a public communication within the meaning of Article 3 of the Copyright Directive 2001/29 (InfoSoc Directive), despite geoblocking. The Supreme Court of the Netherlands had referred this question to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling.
In his Opinion delivered in January, Advocate General Rantos of the European Court of Justice had already stated that the mere possibility of technologically circumventing geoblocking was not sufficient to conclude that an illegal “communication to the public” had taken place (see our blog post of 24 March 2026 on this subject). Anyone who implemented technologically effective measures such as geoblocking was thereby clearly indicating that they did not intend to target the relevant restricted territories.
3. ECJ: Geoblocking is an effective technological protection measure
The ECJ has now followed this view in its judgment of 9 July 2026 (C-788/24).
According to the ECJ, a person who was aware that a work enjoyed copyright protection only in certain Member States but had entered the public domain in others, and who made the work available on a website, had to take effective technological measures to restrict access to the website to those internet users accessing it from Member States in which the work had already entered the public domain.
The Court held that state-of-the-art geoblocking constituted such an effective technological measure. This applied even if it could be circumvented by means of a VPN, as it did not impede free and uncharged access to the work in the Member States where it had entered the public domain, while at the same time safeguarding the interests of the rightsholder in the Member States where the work was still protected.
If, on the other hand, the technological measure were not to be classified as “effective” – for example, because the geoblocking did not correspond to the state of the art – this would constitute a communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3 of the Copyright Directive (InfoSoc Directive). In this case, the communication would be attributable to the person who had published the work on the website, and not to the provider of the VPN or a comparable service who enabled their users to circumvent said ineffective measure.
4. Implications for digital copyright practice
The ECJ’s ruling sets a precedent for copyright practice in the European digital internal market. This is because licence agreements are regularly concluded for individual countries or territories, which forces streaming providers and other digital platforms to implement geoblocking measures. This territorial practice enables rightsholders to market their works in different markets with varying prices and conditions. However, the internet knows no national borders, and almost any access restriction can be circumvented (with sufficient effort).
In this context, the ECJ’s ruling establishes the basis for legally secure territorial offerings on the internet. While doing so, it does not prescribe absolute technological isolation nor does it relieve online content providers of their obligation to implement effective protection measures.
Therefore, technological protection measures do not have to prevent every theoretically conceivable form of circumvention. However, providers of online content must consider the current state of technology and adapt their systems accordingly to new technological developments. Outdated, demonstrably unreliable or merely token protection measures may therefore still be deemed insufficient.
In this specific legal dispute, the Dutch court must now decide whether the geoblocking implemented by the Anne Frank Foundation corresponds to the “state of the art” and can therefore be classified as “effective”.
We will keep you updated on further developments in this and similar cases on our blog!
You might also be interested in this
The judgment ‘Obligation to Return VI’ (I ZR 123/25) of 3 June 2026 is – as the name suggests – the sixth judgment by the First Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) on the so-called obligation to return applicable to hire cars. Following the pronouncement of the judgement, it was widely reported that the BGH had confirmed the continued validity of one of the most controversial provisions of passenger transport law. In the meantime, the dust has settled somewhat and it is becoming clear that this interpretation falls far short of the mark. Indeed, it follows from the grounds of the judgement that maintaining the obligation to return contravenes EU law if one takes its traditional objective and justification as a basis.
In November 2025, the EUIPO Boards of Appeal published a case-law research report on the “Thomson Life doctrine” and the concept of an element’s “independent distinctive role” in composite trade marks. The report is not binding, but it is a useful attempt to bring order to an area of trade mark comparison that even the EU Courts have applied inconsistently.
From 2 August 2026, the labelling obligation under Article 50(4) of the EU AI Act applies – and it reaches practically anyone who uses generative AI professionally to create images, videos, or text. On 10 June 2026, the European Commission published the final Code of Practice on the labelling of AI-generated content. We explain when a label is required, what it must look like, and what risks arise if it is missing.
OLG Bamberg, final judgment of 18 March 2026, case no. 3 UKl 5/25 e | For the first time, a Higher Regional Court has held that the obligations relating to recommender systems and reporting procedures under the Digital Services Act are consumer-protective and can be enforced by consumer associations by way of an action for injunctive relief. In doing so, the Senate gives contour to indeterminate legal concepts governing the design of the de-personalisation option and of the formal notice-and-action procedure. We summarise the decision and provide guidance for practice.
