The complete diary of Anne Frank can be read for free online, but not from all European countries

A person connecting from Belgium can freely consult Anne Frank's complete manuscripts online. Another person attempting to access the same page from Amsterdam will find access blocked. The difference depends on the copyright legislation that remains in force in each country.

The Court of Justice of the European Union issued a ruling on this case on July 9 that clarifies how websites should act when a work already belongs to the public domain in part of Europe, but remains protected across the border. Luxembourg allows its publication, but requires access to be closed from territories where it still holds rights.

Anne Frank wrote her diary between 1942 and 1944 while hiding with her family from Nazi persecution in Amsterdam. Her father, Otto Frank, the only survivor of the family, published in 1947 the version that eventually became one of the main written testimonies of the Holocaust.

The best-known edition became free of rights in much of Europe in 2016. The conflict affects other fragments that Otto Frank decided to leave out and that later appeared in a scientific edition. In the Netherlands, some of these parts remain protected until 2037.

The dispute also pits two entities with very similar names against each other. The Anne Frank Fund, created by Otto Frank and owner of the rights, demanded that the texts be removed. The Anne Frank House, responsible for preserving the house in Amsterdam, participated alongside several academic organizations in the free publication of the manuscripts in 2021.

The block is valid even if a VPN allows bypassing it

The website used a geo-blocking system to prevent entry from the Netherlands and other territories where rights were still in force. The problem reached the courts because a VPN allows hiding the user's real location and simulating that the connection comes from Belgium or any other authorized country.

The Anne Frank Fund argued that this possibility made the barrier insufficient. If a Dutch citizen could enter by virtually changing their location, it argued, the manuscripts were also being offered to the public in the Netherlands.

The CJEU has rejected that a block must be completely insurmountable. The measure is valid when it uses updated technology, automatically detects where the connection is made from, and effectively hinders access from protected countries. A simple question about the user's place of residence, without any technical verification, falls outside that standard.

The ruling thus establishes a criterion that affects digital libraries, universities, archives, and cultural platforms throughout the European Union. Works can be published in countries where they are already free, but the website must maintain a real technological barrier in those where copyright persists.

The Supreme Court of the Netherlands must now apply this criterion to definitively resolve the dispute. If it considers that the block used was effective, the publication can be maintained for authorized users. If the barrier proves insufficient, whoever put the manuscripts online will be held responsible. The company providing the VPN will be exempt from that responsibility.