scholarly journals Protection of the Rights of Subjects of Scientific and Technological Activity: Oracle v. Google

Lex Russica ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 138-147
Author(s):  
A. G. Barabashev ◽  
A. M. Kamalyan ◽  
D. V. Ponomareva
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Patent Protection ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Program Code ◽  
Software Developers ◽  
Intellectual Activity ◽  
Technological Activity ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

The focus of this paper is one of the key cases in the field of protection of the results of intellectual activity considered by foreign courts in recent years — the «Oracle v. Google» case. The authors analyze the background of the case, focus on the main conclusions made by the American court in the course of the dispute. Particular attention is given to the protection of copyright in relation to the lines of code, as well as aspects of patent protection. The authors assess the conclusions of «American Themis» and forecast the impact of this decision on the protection of the rights of subjects of scientific and technological activity. In the context of Oracle v. Google the authors compare the practice of the Court of Justice of the EU as a judicial institution of the European Union. In particular, following the case of SAS Institute Inc. v World Programming Ltd, which is under consideration in the Court of the EU, the authors compare the American and European approaches to the problem of protection of the program code by legal means. In conclusion, the authors attempt to identify the possible risks for the subjects of scientific and technological activities (primarily for software developers) inherent in the decision in the case of Oracle v Google.

scholarly journals L’invalidità del Safe Harbor Agreement

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabiana Accardo
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Safe Harbor ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Us ◽  
Data Protection Law ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

The purpose of this article is that to explain the impact of the landmark decision Schrems c. Data Protection Commissioner [Ireland] - delivered on 7 October 2015 (Case C-362/2014 EU) by the Court of Justice - on the European scenario. Starting from a brief analysis of the major outcomes originated from the pronunciation of the Court of Justice, then it tries to study the level of criticality that the Safe Harbor Agreement and the subsequently adequacy Commission decision 2000/520/EC – that has been invalidated with Schrems judgment – have provoked before this pronunciation on the matter of safeguarding personal privacy of european citizens when their personal data are transferred outside the European Union, in particular the reference is at the US context. Moreover it focuses on the most important aspects of the new EU-US agreement called Privacy Shield: it can be really considered the safer solution for data sharing in the light of the closer implementation of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679, which will take the place of the Directive 95 /46/CE on the EU data protection law?

The Impact of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the Georgian Legal System

2020 ◽  
pp. 241-262
Author(s):  
Gaga Gabrichidze
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Competition Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Association Agreement ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
System P ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

This chapter scrutinizes perception of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) by the Georgian courts and the Georgian Competition Agency. With the conclusion of the Association Agreement between the EU and Georgia in 2014, the Georgian legal system undoubtedly became more closely connected with EU law. Hence, approximation commitments under the Association Agreement made the case law of the CJEU of much more relevance for the Georgian courts and administrative authorities. However, in the wake of intensification of EU–Georgia relations, the impact of CJEU case law can be identified even in the time before conclusion of the Association Agreement. Analysis shows that several factors play a role with regard to the extent and frequency of mentioning CJEU case law in the decisions of the Georgian courts and Competition Agency. Judges refer to case law of the CJEU with the aim of either strengthening their own arguments or using it as a source of interpretation. Taking into consideration the ‘European’ roots of Georgia’s competition policy, the Competition Agency regards the case law of the CJEU as having a very important interpretative value for closing ‘gaps’ in the law.

Migration and Asylum Cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union: Putting the Eu Charter of Fundamental Rights to Test?

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesca Ippolito
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Lisbon Treaty ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Third Country Nationals

This article explores the various guarantees embedded in the eu Charter of Fundamental Rights for eu citizens and third country nationals, following the extension of the Court’s jurisdiction by the Lisbon Treaty in the area of freedom, security and justice. In particular, it highlights the potential and limits to the impact of the Charter in immigration or asylum cases before the cjeu.

scholarly journals A Knot Not to Be Cut? The Legacy of Brexit over the CJEU

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-36
Author(s):  
Marta Simoncini ◽  
Giuseppe Martinico
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Transition Period ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Advocate General ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Structure And Activity ◽  
The Eu

What was the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the Brexit saga? And what will the impact of Brexit be over the future structure and activity of the CJEU? This article deals with this twofold question and explores three different issues. Firstly, we will offer a reflection on the questions and the risks raised by the Wightman case, where the CJEU ruled on the unilateral revocation of the UK notification of its intention to withdraw from the European Union under Art. 50 Treaty of the EU. Secondly, we will analyse the impact of Brexit on the composition of the CJEU and, particularly, the risks for the independence of the Court raised by the advanced termination of the mandate of the British Advocate General. Thirdly, we will provide some insights on the scope of the jurisdiction of the CJEU in the post-Brexit Union, emphasising how the Withdrawal Agreement maintained its jurisdiction during and even beyond the transition period. This article reflects the events that took place up to 6 October 2020.

scholarly journals Use of standard forms in EU Civil Judicial Cooperation: the case of the European Certificate of Succession = L’uso di formulari standard nella cooperazione giudiziaria civile: il caso del certificato successorio europeo

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 627
Author(s):  
Silvia Marino
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
General Framework ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Application Form ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

Abstract: The present paper analyses the recent judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Brisch case. The reference for preliminary ruling concerns the optional or mandatory nature of the application form established by the Succession Implementing Regulation for the issue of an European Certificate of Succession. The present paper tackles the general framework, from the current CJEU’s case law on the Succession Regulation’s provisions on the ECS, to the main procedural issues. Then, an analysis of the case and of the CJEU’s reasoning is offered. The concluding remarks submit some considerations on the impact of the standard forms established by the EU Regulations within the civil judicial cooperation.Palabras clave: European Certificate of Succession, Standard Forms, Succession Regulation No 650/2012, Implementing Regulation No 1329/2014.Riassunto: Il presente contributo analizza la recente sentenza Brisch della Corte di giustizia dell’Unione europea. La domanda di pronuncia pregiudiziale verte sulla natura del modello di domanda di emissione del certificato successorio europeo, previsto dal regolamento di esecuzione del regolamento sulle successioni transfrontaliere. Pertanto, il contributo affronta lo stato attuale della giurisprudenza della Corte di giustizia sul certificato successorio europeo e le regole procedimentali fondamentali per il suo ottenimento. Quindi, è analizzato il caso con particolare attenzione alla motivazione della Corte. Infine, le conclusioni presentano alcune considerazioni più generali sul valore e sugli effetti dei moduli standard, previsti nei regolamenti dell’Unione in materia di cooperazione giudiziaria civile.Parole chiave: certificato successorio europeo, moduli standard, regolamento 650/2012 sulle successioni transfrontaliere, regolamento d’esecuzione 1329/2014

Did the Court of Justice of the European Union Solve the Puzzle by Declaring the Rubik’s Cube Trademark Invalid?

2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (12) ◽  
pp. 1217-1233
Author(s):  
Borbála Lili Kováts
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Patent Protection ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Distinctive Character ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Rubik's Cube ◽  
Rubik’S Cube ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
The Eu

Abstract In 1995, the patent protection for the internationally famous Rubik’s Cube expired. Ernő Rubik, the Hungarian inventor of the three-dimensional puzzle, had to find an alternative way to maintain his monopoly on the market and thus had the shape of the Cube registered as a 3D Community trademark in 1996. However, the idea of perpetuating the exclusive rights related to the Rubik’s Cube only proved to be successful for ten years, as in 2006 Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG, a German competitor of Rubik, filed an application for declaration of invalidity against the 3D Rubik’s Cube trademark. The application was based on the lack of distinctive character, descriptiveness and functionality of the 3D trademark. This was rejected by OHIM. The invalidity case ended up before the Court of Justice of the European Union, upon the appeal of the German competitor. The Court found that the Rubik’s Cube trademarks should have been declared invalid, and transferred the case back to OHIM, which then had to bring a new decision that was in line with the interpretation of the CJEU. The study analyses the two rounds of invalidity proceedings, the key issues which emerged throughout the case, the interpretation of functionality by OHIM and the CJEU, and the legal background and the prospect for 3D shape marks in the EU.

5. Limits to EU legislative powers

2020 ◽  
pp. 123-153
Author(s):  
Sylvia de Mars
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

This chapter investigates the EU's competences and the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, assessing if the limits set out in the Treaties actually work as concrete limits on EU legislative powers in practice. It begins by considering whether competences are genuinely clear and finite in how they set out limits to areas in which the EU can make laws. There are three aspects of EU law that have been deemed responsible for the EU's competence creep: the flexible provisions of Article 114 TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) and Article 352 TFEU, and the so-called doctrine of ‘implied powers’. Underpinning all three of these areas of ‘flexibility’ is criticism of the manner in which the Court of Justice has interpreted the relevant treaty provisions or doctrines. The chapter then evaluates the effectivity of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. It also looks at the impact of Brexit on the limits to EU legislative powers.

Russia - European Union: The continuation ofthe sanctions standoff

2017 ◽  
pp. 114-127
Author(s):  
M. Klinova ◽  
E. Sidorova
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Economic Recession ◽  
Economic Sanctions ◽  
Current Data ◽  
The State ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Year 2013

The article deals with economic sanctions and their impact on the state and prospects of the neighboring partner economies - the European Union (EU) and Russia. It provides comparisons of current data with that of the year 2013 (before sanctions) to demonstrate the impact of sanctions on both sides. Despite the fact that Russia remains the EU’s key partner, it came out of the first three partners of the EU. The current economic recession is caused by different reasons, not only by sanctions. Both the EU and Russia have internal problems, which the sanctions confrontation only exacerbates. The article emphasizes the need for a speedy restoration of cooperation.

The Impact of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the Legal System of Ukraine

2019 ◽  
pp. 53
Author(s):  
ROMAN PETROV
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal System ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Impact

У статті досліджено вплив Суду Європейського Союзу (ЄС) на впровадження і застосування Угоди про асоціацію між Україною та ЄС, що викликало безпрецедентні політичні, економічні та правові реформи в Україні. Зокрема, розглядаються конституційні виклики, які постали перед державою під час виконання Угоди в правовій системі. Крім того, досліджено два питання. Перше – ефективне впровадження та застосування Угоди про асоціацію між Україною та ЄС в українській правовій системі. Друге – сумісність і відповідність Угоди Конституції України. Проаналізовано останні політичні та правові події в Україні через призму ефективної реалізації Угоди про асоціацію між Україною та ЄС і зростання проєвропейського правового активізму в державі. На закінчення стверджується, що Угода про асоціацію між Україною та ЄС посилює пристосованість національного конституційного устрою до цілей досягнення європейської інтеграції та застосування європейських спільних цінностей в Україні. Угода про асоціацію між Україною та ЄС створила стійку інституційну та правову основу для застосування acquis ЄС (правового доробку ЄС), включаючи прецедентне право ЄС та комплексне законодавче наближення між законодавством України та ЄС. Однак інституційні реформи, які вже відбулися, не можна вважати цілком достатніми. Верховній Раді України не вдалося запровадити основні та процедурні засади для застосування та впровадження Угоди в правовий порядок України. Однак ця прогалина частково заповнюється зростаючим судовим активізмом в Україні. Вітчизняні судді вже почали посилатися на Угоду про асоціацію між Україною та ЄС і відповідні частини acquis ЄС у своїх рішеннях, тим самим закладаючи основу для регулярного застосування загальних принципів права ЄС у процесі виконання й імплементації Угоди про асоціацію між Україною та ЄС.

Institutional organisation of the European Union in the time of crisis – horizontal division of power and functions

2016 ◽  
pp. 54-66
Author(s):  
Monika Poboży
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
European Council ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Strong Position ◽  
Institutional System ◽  
The Eu

The article poses a question about the existence of the rule of separation of powers in the EU institutional system, as it is suggested by the wording of the treaties. The analysis led to the conclusion, that in the EU institutional system there are three separated functions (powers) assigned to different institutions. The Council and the European Parliament are legislative powers, the Commission and the European Council create a “divided executive”. The Court of Justice is a judicial power. The above mentioned institutions gained strong position within their main functions (legislative, executive, judicial), but the proper mechanisms of checks and balances have not been developed, especially in the relations between legislative and executive power. These powers do not limit one another in the EU system. In the EU there are therefore three separated but arbitrary powers – because they do not limit and balance one another, and are not fully controlled by the member states.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document