![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/diary-600x412.png\")
The Diary of Anne Frank is widely regarded as one of the best-known literary works in history. <\/p>\nThe Diary of Anne Frank is widely regarded as one of the best-known literary works in history. <\/p>\n
While the diary\u2019s importance is universally recognized, the accessibility of its digital manuscripts has been at the center of a Dutch copyright battle that eventually made its way to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU<\/a>).<\/p>\n The legal dispute<\/a> was triggered by differences in copyright protection terms in the EU. Parts of Anne Frank\u2019s manuscripts remain protected in the Netherlands until 2037, while the same material entered the public domain in Belgium and many other EU member states years ago.<\/p>\n To navigate these conflicting laws, the Dutch Anne Frank Stichting<\/a> published a scholarly edition online<\/a> using \u201cstate-of-the-art\u201d geo-blocking to prevent Dutch residents from accessing the site. Visitors from the Netherlands and other countries where the work is protected<\/a> are met with a clear message, informing them about these access restrictions.<\/p>\n \u201cThe scholarly edition of the Anne Frank manuscripts cannot be made available in all countries, due to copyright considerations,\u201d is the message blocked visitors get to see.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Despite these blocking measures, the Swiss-based Anne Frank Fonds was not pleased. The Fonds essentially argued that if a block isn\u2019t 100% bypass-proof, the content shouldn\u2019t be online at all.<\/p>\n The Dutch lower court dismissed<\/a> this argument, stating the defendants had taken reasonable measures to prevent access from the Netherlands. The Fonds appealed, without result, and the case is now heading back to the Dutch Supreme Court, which referred several questions<\/a> to the EU\u2019s top court to decide the fate of VPN neutrality and the sufficiency of geo-blocking. <\/p>\n In January, Advocate General Rantos published his opinion<\/a> concluding that geo-blocking is a sufficient measure and that VPN providers are neutral intermediaries. That opinion was not binding, but it set the tone for what followed.<\/p>\n Last week, the CJEU\u2019s Second Chamber delivered its final judgment. The Court ruled that a work that\u2019s in the public domain in some EU member states, but still under copyright in another, can be published on a geo-blocked website without being considered an infringing \u201ccommunication to the public\u201d in the protected country.<\/p>\n The Court recognized that geo-blocking can be circumvented with a VPN, but that is not the decisive factor. If a publisher specifically chose to use a state-of-the-art geo-blocking to block visitors from a specific country, it is clear that these people are not the intended audience.<\/p>\n \u201cWhile it is true that geo-blocking measures, including state-of-the-art measures, can, like any technological measure, be circumvented, particularly through the use of a VPN or similar service, the possibility of such circumvention cannot, in itself and in all circumstances, be a decisive factor in finding those measures to be inadequate and, therefore, ineffective,\u201d the judgment reads.<\/p>\n The Court also rejected the idea that publishers should be required to use stricter access controls, such as subscriptions or login requirements. Imposing those measures would disproportionately restrict free access for users in public-domain countries.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The Anne Frank website also uses a self-declaration barrier, shown above, asking visitors to confirm that they are accessing the site from a public-domain country. The Court found that this type of measure, on its own, is not sufficient or effective.<\/p>\n VPN providers are not liable if they are used to bypass state-of-the-art geo-blocking measures. The same logic also holds if the geo-blocking measures are ineffective to begin with. <\/p>\n The EU\u2019s top court sees VPN providers as neutral intermediaries, referring to previous rulings where YouTube and Uploaded<\/a> were not held liable for pirating users. As an intermediary, a VPN itself simply acts as a secure, neutral routing tool that\u2019s not communicating anything to the public.<\/p>\n \u201cThe provider of a VPN or similar services that are used in order to circumvent an ineffective geo-blocking measure and are lawful technical tools which users may legitimately use cannot be regarded as also having communicated the work to the public,\u201d the judgment reads.<\/p>\n The Court explained that a VPN provider \u201cdoes not give end users access to a protected work\u201d and added that it \u201cdoes not play an \u2018indispensable role’\u201d in any act of communication.<\/p>\n This conclusion is significant. It effectively confirms that the EU\u2019s highest court does not see VPN providers as copyright infringers simply because their technology enables users to bypass geographical restrictions.<\/p>\n The CJEU ruling means that VPN providers are not held directly liable under EU law. However, this finding still has to be interpreted by local courts. <\/p>\n In this case, it goes back to the Dutch Supreme Court, which still has to decide whether the geo-blocking system deployed by the Anne Frank Stichting actually meets the \u201cstate-of-the-art\u201d threshold.<\/p>\n The ruling comes at a time when the status of VPNs in copyright enforcement is also being tested from the opposite direction. In France, for example, VPNs are required to block pirate sites, as they are seen as key intermediaries, similar to ISPs.<\/p>\n The CJEU ruling is not in direct conflict with the French court orders, which are issued under the French Sports Code. However, these blocking orders are actively contested too and may eventually find their way to the EU\u2019s top court as well. <\/p>\n \u2014<\/em><\/p>\n A copy of the CJEU\u2019s judgment in Case C-788\/24 (ECLI:EU:C:2026:559) is available here<\/a>.<\/p>\n From: TF<\/a>, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.<\/p>\n![\"sorry\"](\"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/sorry-frank-600x219.jpg\")
<\/center><\/p>\nState-of-the-Art Geo-Blocking Is Good Enough<\/h2>\n
![\"checking](\"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/accesschecking.png\")
<\/a><\/center><\/p>\nVPN Providers Are not Liable<\/h2>\n
The Broader Fallout<\/h2>\n