The right of ‘communication to the public’ in the European Union

2017 ◽  
pp. 96-134
Author(s):  
Fabienne Brison ◽  
Sari Depreeuw
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Communication To The Public ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Right

scholarly journals The new European Union space policy in order to maintain Europe’s position among space leaders

2019 ◽  
pp. 20-31
Author(s):  
Piotr Kolczynski
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Outer Space ◽  
Public Institutions ◽  
Space Policy ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Private Companies ◽  
The Public ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Challenges And Opportunities ◽  
The Right

This paper analyzes the current EU space strategy and confronts it with existing global challenges in the space sector. The ultimate aim of this research is to recommend a well-adjusted space policy for the European Commission to ensure effective and sustainable exploration and use of outer space for the benefit of all EU member-states. In order to draft the most efficient space policy, the uniqueness of Europe’s space sector is studied. This paper argues that the EU space policy has to focus on guaranteeing European autonomy in access and use of outer space. The author extensively analyzes the challenges and opportunities related to dynamic development of private space sector’s activities. Emphasis is made on the significance of symbiotic cooperation between the public institutions and private companies regarding mutual benefits. The paper concludes that it is the right time for the European Union to build a bold and prospective space policy.

COMMUNICATION TO THE PUBLIC AND ACCESSORY COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

2017 ◽  
Vol 76 (3) ◽  
pp. 496-499
Author(s):  
Christina Angelopoulos
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Copyright Infringement ◽  
Communication To The Public ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Public ◽  
Explicit Definition ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Gradual Accumulation ◽  
The Eu

In recent judgments, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has been developing its interpretation of the notion of “communication to the public”. This forms one of the exclusive rights of copyright holders that have been harmonised by the InfoSoc Directive (Directive 2001/29/EC (OJ 2001 L 167 p.1)). As was established in 2006 (Case C-306/05, Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de España (SGAE) v Rafael Hoteles, ECLI:EU:C:2006:764, at [31]), despite the lack of an explicit definition in that directive, the notion of a “communication to the public” must be given “an autonomous and uniform interpretation” throughout the EU. This finding initially resulted in the creation of a considerable amount of uncertainty for national courts. The gradual accumulation of information through subsequent CJEU judgments has begun to bring some clarity, while also raising new questions.

A First Glimpse of Light on the Emerging Invisible EU Model BIT

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 379-401 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Hoffmeister ◽  
Gabriela Alexandru
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Investment Policy ◽  
Public Consultation ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Public ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Political Orientations ◽  
Partnership Agreement ◽  
The Right ◽  
Trade And Investment

The article recalls the general political orientations of the investment policy of the European Union (eu) as outlined by the three major institutions (Commission, Council, and Parliament) shortly after Lisbon. It then turns with some detail to the substantive standards and the enforcement chapter. The authors present a number of changes that the eu is pushing in its negotiations with Canada and Singapore and which are also outlined in the public consultation with respect to the eu-us Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement (ttip). They come to the conclusion that all these elements present “[a] new start for investment and investment protection,” marked by the need for “a better balance between the right of states to regulate and the need to protect investors,” as well as for an improved arbitration system in the emerging eu practice in its negotiations with third states.

The Direct Liability of Intermediaries

2020 ◽  
pp. 334-348
Author(s):  
Eleonora Rosati
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Communication To The Public ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Public ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Right ◽  
Secondary Liability ◽  
Direct Primary ◽  
Pirate Bay ◽  
User Activities

This chapter discusses one of the most relevant developments in respect of online intermediaries, that is their direct (primary)—rather than just secondary—liability in relation to user activities, including user-uploaded content. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has expressly envisaged the possibility of direct liability for copyright infringement in the context of its increasingly expansive case law on the right of communication to the public within Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29, including the 2017 decision in C-610/15 Stichting Brein (The Pirate Bay case). This chapter explains how the CJEU has come to consider the possibility of direct liability of intermediaries in relation to user activities and undertakes a reflection on the implications of said approach, also including the possibility of extending the reasoning in Stichting Brein to less egregious scenarios than the Pirate Bay.

scholarly journals LÍMITES AL DERECHO DE ASISTENCIA SANITARIA TRANSFRONTERIZA Y PRINCIPIO DE PROPORCIONALIDAD TRAS LA SENTENCIA DEL TJUE DE 23 DE SEPTIEMBRE DE 2020.

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 374-399
Author(s):  
Belén López Insua
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
European Union ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Quality Healthcare ◽  
Right To Health Care ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Public Sphere ◽  
The Right ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Community Health Care System

Health protection is one of the fundamental pillars of the European Union and of the process of social-democratic constitutionalism. The achievement of a Community health care system is now more than ever one of the great challenges for the European community. In spite of these objectives, the European Union has adopted a logic that relies more on an interventionist model than on simple coordination, rather than on a harmonised system for all Member States. Unfortunately, this particular cooperative pluralism has made each of the Community countries competent and responsible for the coordination rules laid down by the Union. In this sense, Directive 2011/24/EU is set as the reference standard to guarantee the right of all European citizens to receive safe and quality healthcare, both in the public sphere and in the private sphere of another Member State. The aim is to guarantee the freedom of movement and movement of persons without damaging health. Today, the right to health care is a fundamental social right of a primary nature, which is linked to the right to life and dignity.

scholarly journals Reflections on the exception of disobedience of the public service

2021 ◽  
pp. 49-56
Author(s):  
Tatiana Mostovei ◽  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Public Service ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Undue Influence ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
The Public ◽  
Republic Of Moldova ◽  
Legislative Framework ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right

The article is dedicated to examining the origin and essence of the right of the public oficial in the Republic of Moldova to refuse to execute the illegal provisions of the superior. The paper is based on the opinions of French and Romanian doctrinaires, the jurisprudence of the Langheur case and refers to the legislative framework of the European Union, the French Republic, Romania and the Republic of Moldova. At the same time, this right is analyzed in the light of the obligation not to admit the undue influence, regulated in the national legislation.

scholarly journals Is there a public interest in knowing what is going on in society? A comparative study of the European Courts

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 691-712
Author(s):  
Maija Dahlberg ◽  
Daniel Wyatt
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Official Document ◽  
The Public ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Reason ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

Both of the European courts, namely the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union, have well-established case law on the public’s right of access to official documents. The core of the right is the same in both of the courts’ jurisdictions but the interpretations concerning the breadth of the right are very different. One fundamental reason for the public’s right of access to information being understood differently by each of these courts is their divergent approaches to the assessment of the public interest associated with an individual’s request for information. While the ECtHR openly evaluates the public interest or interests involved in the disclosure of an official document, the CJEU gives this factor little or no weight. In this article, our main argument is that CJEU should follow the ECtHR’s interpretation of the public interest in order to give the right of access to documents the same scope in both legal regimes and, in doing so, fulfil the requirements stemming from Article 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Can We Better the European Union Better Regulation Agenda?

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Felice SIMONELLI ◽  
Nadina IACOB
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Sustainable Development Goals ◽  
Public Consultation ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Consultation Process ◽  
Stepwise Approach ◽  
The Public ◽  
Better Regulation ◽  
Development Goals ◽  
The Right

The European Commission published a new Communication on better regulation on 29 April 2021, with the aim of improving the European Union’s (EU) policymaking process. By updating the better regulation agenda to mainstream sustainable development goals and the digital and green transition and by ensuring more foresight-based policymaking, this Communication shows that the Commission is moving in the right direction. Several proposals also have great potential to simplify the better regulation process and make it more transparent. By contrast, the envisaged simplification of the public consultation process may jeopardise its effectiveness and should be carefully reconsidered. In addition, a more cautious, stepwise approach to introducing, testing and adjusting the new EU one-in, one-out system is certainly needed. This article aims to identify and assess the key changes proposed by the new Communication and to share ideas for the preparation of the new Better Regulation Guidelines and Toolbox, which are expected to translate the Communication into practice.

scholarly journals A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE CASE LAW ON THE RIGHT “TO BE FORGOTTEN”

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 1377-1383
Author(s):  
Liuba Tzakova
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Virtual Space ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Public ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right

Modern society is evolving at a faster pace than before and this process is driven by the technological progress and the access to virtual space and Internet. Physical exchange of information is being replaced by its virtual double which offers faster speeds in quite different dimensions compared to traditional ones. Virtual space reduces distances between different parts of the world, there are no state borders, the individual has the ability to provide and create electronic content from anywhere in the world.In this space of “limitless” freedom, however, there is an inevitable collision between the different interests of individuals which has its reflection in the material world. It is here that the increasing necessity to create rules and regulations for resolving future and already arisen conflicts becomes visible.This report addresses issues related to the deletion/erasure of information on the Internet relating to a particular person, or the so-called right “to be forgotten”. A person may refer to this right when he considers published and publicly available information about him on the network irrelevant, as well as when the information is not correct, is no longer up to date, or the ground for its processing has been dropped. The right “to be forgotten” is a conflict issue that shows both advantages and disadvantages. It offers opportunity for a new beginning and for protection of privacy7, but it is often necessary to restrict it in order to protect the right of the public to be informed and the freedom of speech.The European Union plays an active role in order to place this issue in a legal framework. It established legal regulation in the field with Directive 95/46 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data which is interpreted in connection with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The General Data Protection Regulation entered into force in 2018 and replaced Directive 95/46 /EC. Of particular importance for understanding and enforcing of the right “to be forgotten” is the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights. The role of the courts of the different countries should also not be underestimated.Despite the clarity that this regulation introduces, there are new issues that need to be addressed, such as the criteria for deleting personal information from the virtual space and in which cases the public interest is justified to take precedence over that of the individual and where it is not.

scholarly journals Perfiles constitucionales del derecho a la educación y la libertad de enseñanza en el ordenamiento jurídico español

2019 ◽  
pp. 191-213
Author(s):  
Ana VALERO HEREDIA
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Free Choice ◽  
School Segregation ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Educational Model ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
The Public ◽  
Spanish Constitution ◽  
Notable Increase ◽  
The Right

LABURPENA: Eskola-segregazioa mailarik altuenetan duten Europar Batasuneko estatuetako bat bihurtu da Espainia azken urteotan. Errealitate horrek arrazoi ugari ditu; besteak beste, botere publikoek interpretazio hedagarria eman izana familiek ikastetxea aukeratzeko duten eskubideari, eta hezkuntza-itunen kopuruak nabarmen gora egin izana. Artikulu honetan, Konstituzio espainiarrak diseinatutako hezkuntza-eredua aztertzen da, agerian uzteko haren gidalerroak ez direla bateragarriak hezkuntzaren eremuan merkatuaren logikaren ezarpena bultzatzen duten hezkuntza-askatasunaren interpretazioekin. ABSTRACT: Spain has in recent years become one of the states of the European Union with higher levels of school segregation. This reality has several causes, like an expansive interpretation by the public authorities of the right of families to the free choice of educational center, and a notable increase in the number of educational concerts. This article analyzes the educational model designed by the Spanish Constitution, in order to show that its guidelines are incompatible with interpretations of the freedom of education that encourage the introduction of market logic into education. RESUMEN: España se ha convertido en los últimos años en uno de los Estados de la Unión Europea con mayores niveles de segregación escolar. Esta realidad tiene diversas causas entre las que se encuentra una interpretación expansiva por parte de los poderes públicos del derecho de las familias a la libre elección de centro educativo, y un incremento notable del número de conciertos educativos. En el presente artículo se analiza el modelo educativo diseñado por la Constitución española, con el fin de evidenciar que sus líneas directrices resultan incom patibles con interpretaciones de la libertad de enseñanza que propician la introducción de las lógicas de mercado en materia educativa.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document