In the ruling, the court said the review expressed a scientific opinion of the book and did not go beyond the kind of criticism to which all authors of intellectual work subject themselves when they publish. It agreed with Mr. Weiler's contention that the case did not properly fall within its jurisdiction anyway. It concluded that Ms. Calvo-Goller had engaged in forum shopping and had shown bad faith in bringing the complaint. It said it was ordering the plaintiff to pay the €8,000 to Mr. Weiler in reparation for the harm caused by the improper nature of her action.
Mr. Weiler has now posted an account of the ruling on his journal's blog, EJIL: Talk! Earlier, in a January 25 post, he described the legal strategy he and his lawyers used. They considered the action "an egregious instance of 'forum shopping'" or "libel tourism," he wrote. "It was important to challenge this hugely dangerous attack on academic freedom and liberty of expression," he said. "Reversing custom, we specifically asked the court not to examine our jurisdictional challenge as a preliminary matter but to join it to the case on the merits so that it would have the possibility to pronounce on both issues."