Towards Less Flexibility

2019 ◽  
pp. 73-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eleonora Rosati
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
Exceptions And Limitations ◽  
Eu Copyright Law ◽  
The One ◽  
National Legislatures

This chapter maps a trend that, with increasing clarity, has been emerging at the level of case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union: on the one hand, the harmonizing force of EU copyright law—especially as interpreted by the Court—is greater than what individual EU Member States’ practices have suggested; on the other hand, and as a result of this, the freedom left to the various national legislatures (and courts) in areas harmonized by EU legislation is more limited than what has been believed to be the case in the past. A discussion and application of the emerging doctrine of EU preemption is provided in relation to selected areas (economic rights and exceptions and limitations).

Relevance of EU Copyright Law to (Future) Non-EU Member States

2019 ◽  
pp. 173-198
Author(s):  
Eleonora Rosati
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Exceptions And Limitations ◽  
Eu Copyright Law ◽  
Eu Directives ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact

This chapter discusses the impact of CJEU copyright case law on national copyright regimes, even beyond the wording of EU directives as transposed into national legal systems. To this end, it focuses on the UK and, following a discussion of what immediate changes the departure from the EU and the EEA (Brexit) would have (also with regard to issues of exhaustion), it explores to what extent case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has changed UK copyright law. EU decisions have had an impact in areas such as: copyright subsistence, subject matter categorization, primary/accessory liability, standard of infringement, exceptions and limitations, and enforcement (with particular regard to website blocking jurisprudence). Overall, this chapter shows the legacy of CJEU case law, and how pervasive the impact of such case law is.

scholarly journals The effect of political trust and trust in European citizens on European identity

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 161-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Soetkin Verhaegen ◽  
Marc Hooghe ◽  
Ellen Quintelier
Keyword(s):  
Political Institutions ◽  
Political Trust ◽  
The Other ◽  
European Identity ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Institutional Approach ◽  
The One ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

In the literature, two approaches toward the development of a European identity can be distinguished. Society-based approaches assume that the most important foundation for the development of a European identity is trust toward other European citizens as this allows Europeans to identify with the European Union as a community of citizens and values. The institutional approach, on the other hand, assumes that a shared European identity is predominantly based on trust in political institutions. In this paper, we use the results of the IntUne Mass Survey 2009 (n=16,613 in 16 EU member states) to test the relationship between social and political trust on the one hand, and European identity on the other. The results suggest that trust in other European citizens is positively associated with European identity, but trust in the European political institutions has a stronger relation with European identity. This could imply that efforts to strengthen European identity cannot just rely on a bottom-up approach, but should also pay attention to the effectiveness and the visibility of the EU institutions and the way they are being perceived by European citizens.

What We Talk About When We Talk About Harmonisation

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 360-379 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcus KLAMERT
Keyword(s):  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Tobacco Products ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Full Harmonisation ◽  
Origin Principle ◽  
The One ◽  
Regulatory Models

AbstractWhen we talk about harmonisation, we may mean quite different things. There is a close, yet often unclear, relationship between minimum harmonisation and mutual recognition on the one hand, and between full harmonisation and the country of origin principle on the other hand. This paper will discuss harmonisation in relation to these other regulatory models with, among others, the Tobacco Products and Services Directives as illustrations. Moreover, many years after Tobbaco Advertising I and II it remains entirely unclear how minimum harmonisation instruments must be designed in order to be lawful. This paper proposes a consistent reading of the case law on what is called legislative minimum harmonisation based on Article 114 TFEU. It is also shown that the Court of Justice of the European Union applies a lenient standard to more stringent national measures under what is called constitutional minimum harmonisation based on competences for social policy and the environment.

scholarly journals The interpretation complying with EU law manifested in the case law unifying judgment No. 15/2013 of the Portuguese Supreme Court of Justice

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 82-96
Author(s):  
Carla Machado
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
The Other ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Public ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The One

This article aims to address the interpretation that has been made by Portuguese courts in relation to the concept of “communication of the work to the public” enshrined in Article 3 (1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001, duly transposed into the Portuguese legal order by Law No. 50/2006 of 24 August, which culminated in the drafting of the case law unifying judgment No. 15/2013. By verifying its content and analysing the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter CJEU), concerning the interpretation of that concept, we conclude that the said case law unifying judgment does not comply with EU law. Therefore, we will list, on the one hand, the inherent consequences regarding the upkeep of the interpretation that has been held by the Portuguese judicial authorities and, on the other, we will suggest solutions for the resolution of similar cases by appealing to the principle of conforming interpretation.

Introduction

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Eleonora Rosati
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
The Other ◽  
Property Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Copyright Policy ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Past ◽  
The One ◽  
The Eu

Compared to other areas of intervention at the European Union (EU) level, copyright harmonization is a relatively recent phenomenon. Compared to other areas of intellectual property law, copyright harmonization has not been as complete as with other rights. Yet, two phenomena may be observed: one the one hand, copyright policy and legislative initiatives have intensified over the past few years; on the other hand, the large number of references to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has substantially shaped the EU copyright framework and, with it, also the copyright framework of individual EU Member States....

Standards Applied in Relevant Copyright Rulings

2019 ◽  
pp. 37-70
Author(s):  
Eleonora Rosati
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
Strict Interpretation ◽  
Exceptions And Limitations ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
High Level ◽  
International Instruments ◽  
Fair Balance

This chapter discusses the nature and content of eleven key standards that the Court has consistently employed in its copyright case law. They are: high level of protection, autonomous concepts of EU law, effectiveness, proportionality, fair balance of different rights and interests, interpretation in light of international instruments, interpretation in light of wording and context of provisions, interpretation in light of objectives pursued by legislation at issue, interpretation in light of fundamental rights as granted by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preventive nature of economic rights, and strict interpretation of exceptions and limitations. This chapter also conducts a statistical analysis of the selected rulings, to identify relationships between these standards (considered in pairs), both in general and with particular regard to selected areas (economic rights, exceptions and limitations, and enforcement). The goal is to facilitate the understanding of how different standards interact with each other.

On the Issue of the Succession Law Reform in Russia and the European Union: Some Results of 2017 – 2019

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 871
Author(s):  
Alexandr А. PUKHART ◽  
Hajiyev Adil AFGANOGLY
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The Other ◽  
Law Reform ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Special Procedure ◽  
The Times ◽  
The One

The authors investigate the features of reforming the succession law in Russia and the European Union. It was revealed that: (1) the topic of cross-border succession  is becoming increasingly important in Europe, given that substantive laws in EU Member States vary significantly with respect to the form of will, the admissibility of succession  agreements, the rules of calling for inheritance, etc.; (2) these problems should have been adopted by Regulation No. 650/2012 on succession  adopted on July 4, 2012, which has been applied in all EU member states since August 17, 2015; (3) The Regulation introduced the European Certificate of Succession (ECS) - a document that must be recognized in all member states without any special procedure; (4) on the one hand, ECS has simplified the procedure for accepting and registering an inheritance; on the other hand, problems have been identified that arise as a result of applying the laws of individual states; (5) the reform of the Russian legislation on inheritance, which took place in 2017-2019, was aimed at ensuring the interests of heirs by introducing such institutions as: succession fund, succession agreement, joint testament of spouses; which made it possible to conclude that Russian legislation is increasingly intensively keeping up with the times and becoming more flexible in terms of inheritance.

The Cases of Edam Holland and Gouda Holland

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 444-450
Author(s):  
Vadim Mantrov
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Geographical Origin ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Locus Standi ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The One

Cases C-517/14 P and C-519/P, Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse e.V. v European Commission, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Nederlandse Zuivelorganisatie, unreported 24 October 2014 (Seventh Chamber).In the two related cases commented on, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) dealt with assessment of locus standi in the case of an applicant who disputed the validity of registration of two indications of geographical origin (IGOs), namely Edam Holland and Gouda Holland, being compound designations and containing a famous generic word designation (name), i.e. Edam and Gouda respectively. The importance of both cases relates, on the one hand, to the fact that registration of these IGOs was challenged on the basis of the generic names Edam and Gouda which are extensively used in practice, occupying a considerable market share. On the other, both cases could be a signal whether the CJEU re–affirms its restrictive approach to assessment of locus standi under Article 263 (4) TFEU. Although the CJEU re–affirmed its longstanding case law on restrictive assessment of locus standi also concerning registration of a compound geographical designation on the basis of a generic name, yet, as is argued in this case note, this approach did not take into account the specifics of registering IGOs (author's summary).

The Impact of the Court of Justice of the European Union on Tunisian Judges: Quo Vadis?

2020 ◽  
pp. 320-346
Author(s):  
Béligh Elbalti
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal Education ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Current Situation ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Quo Vadis ◽  
The One ◽  
The Impact

This chapter examines the question whether the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has exercised an influence on Tunisian judges and the extent of that influence. After explaining the general legal background of Tunisia as a legal system and the attitude of Tunisian judges towards foreign legal sources in general, the chapter explores the available case law of Tunisian courts in order to identify the areas of law where such an influence manifests itself. It shows that, generally speaking, Tunisian judges are quite open to foreign legal sources and frequently cite those sources in their judgments. However, when it comes to the case law of the CJEU, two opposite trends could be identified. On the one hand, the case law of Tunisian ordinary courts shows that the CJEU exercises little influence on Tunisian judges, despite extensive and diversified cooperation between the EU and Tunisia. On the other hand, the case law of the Competition Council shows that the Council is more willing to refer to CJEU decisions in deciding the cases pending before them. The chapter considers several reasons that are likely to explain this double aspect of the influence of the CJEU on Tunisian judges. It argues that the weakness of comparative research, legal education in general, as well as the role played by legal actors in Tunisia are among the main reasons behind the current situation.

Copyright and the Court of Justice of the European Union

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eleonora Rosati
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Special Focus ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Copyright Laws ◽  
Exceptions And Limitations ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Impact

This title focuses specifically on the role, action, and legacy of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the field of copyright, providing an exclusive survey that covers two decades (1998–2018) of decisions in this area. The main objective is to give a sense of the direction of EU copyright, by attempting to ‘tidy up’ and rationalize existing rulings. The book consists of three parts. The first part explores the role of the CJEU in copyright cases. Besides outlining the history of EU harmonization and providing data concerning the Court’s activity, it extracts the key standards employed in copyright case law, explains their meaning and significance, and undertakes a novel statistical analysis aimed at mapping relations between said standards. Following a discussion of the impact of CJEU interpretation of certain provisions (notably their preemptive force on Member States’ freedom), the second part concerns CJEU action (and vision) in respect of three key areas: economic rights, exceptions and limitations, and enforcement. The final part focuses on CJEU legacy broadly intended. It tackles the effect on national copyright laws and the current policy discourse around EU copyright reform. As regards the former, the book discusses the default consequences of the departure of a Member State from the EU, with a special focus on Brexit. In relation to the latter, attention turns to a number of areas which need to be considered in light, not just of existing legislation, but also—and perhaps most importantly—existing case law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document