scholarly journals JURISDICTION IN CROSS-BORDER COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT CASES RETHINKING THE APPROACH OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

2021 ◽  
pp. 299-334
Author(s):  
Birgit Van Houtert
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Copyright Infringement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Court Of Justice

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 Digital Cross-border Interest in the Framework of Public Procurement Legislation: The Game Changer

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 51-68
Author(s):  
Delia Lucía Martínez Lorenzo
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Public Procurement ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Procurement Contracts ◽  
Game Changer

Originally introduced by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the presence of 'certain cross-border interest' is used to justify the application of EU principles to public procurement contracts that fall out the scope of EU law. Nonetheless, crossborder interest needs to be proven based on the criteria settled by the CJEU. This article presents, firstly, a definition of cross-border interest and its relevance; secondly, the latest trends on digital public procurement and e-administration. Finally, the paper will discuss whether, based on the criteria of the CJEU, the expansion of digitalisation will render the presence of cross-border interest automatic, thus increasing transparency and consequently changing forever how we apply EU law.

scholarly journals Cross-border company migration in the EU: Transfer of registered office (conversion) – the last piece of the puzzle? Case C-106/16 Polbud, EU:C:2017:804

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-107
Author(s):  
Stephan Rammeloo
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Freedom Of Establishment ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Registered Office ◽  
Legislative Measures ◽  
Proper Balance ◽  
The Eu

On 25 October 2017 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) provided for a preliminary ruling in its Polbud judgment concerning a cross-border company conversion. This conversion had to be accomplished by transferring the company’s registered office from one EU Member State to another. The Court’s ruling – first, that such a transfer, whether or not involving at the same time the company’s headquarters or economic conduct, falls within the ambit of Articles 49 and 54 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) on freedom of establishment, and, second, that legislative measures imposed on the migrating company by the Member State of origin entailing the winding-up of the company on the conclusion of a liquidation procedure are precluded – deserves approval. The Polbud judgment not only provides for clarity but also further completes the options of cross-border migration operations for companies and firms. At the same time, however, the Court’s ruling demonstrates the need to establish uniform legislative standards at the EU level, safeguarding the interests of all company stakeholders under the reign of Article 52 subsection 2 litera (g) TFEU. Both the experience with Directive 2005/56/EC on cross-border mergers and, from the late eighties of last century onwards, various initiatives having resulted in consecutive ‘pre-drafts’ for a Cross-border Company Migration Directive, may serve as guideline for further harmonisation in the field related. It is now for the Commission to take action, seeking a proper balance between the potentially diverging interests of all company stakeholders.

scholarly journals JURISDICTION FOR CROSS-BORDER BREACH OF PERSONALITY AND DEFAMATION: EDATE ADVERTISING AND MARTINEZ

2012 ◽  
Vol 61 (4) ◽  
pp. 1007-1016
Author(s):  
Lorna Gillies
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Private Lives ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Communications Technologies ◽  
Article 5 ◽  
Harmful Event ◽  
Newspaper Articles

In the conjoined cases C-509/09 e-Date Advertising GmbH v X and C-161/10 Olivier Martinez and others v MGN Ltd,1 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) was required to determine the scope of applicability of both Article 5(3) of Regulation EC 44/2001 (the Brussels I Regulation)2 and Article 3 of Directive EC 2000/31 (the Electronic Commerce Directive). Both cases were concerned with defamation and breach of personality and image rights as a result of the publication of two newspaper articles which were accessible online via each of the defendants' websites. As readers will be fully aware, Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation enables claimants to establish special jurisdiction in the case of a tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts of the Member State where a harmful event has occurred or may occur. The effectiveness of Article 5(3) as a ground of jurisdiction focuses on the locality of the event. The question that arose in both cases was, essentially, where could the claimants bring proceedings for breach of personality and defamation as a result of newspaper articles published online via websites,3 when those websites were accessible in multiple jurisdictions? According to an experienced legal practitioner in the United Kingdom, ‘more than 25 billion individual items of content are shared each month on Facebook alone.’4 There are increasing concerns regarding the dissemination of comments through the medium of ‘ubiquit(ous), converged and displace(d)’5 Web 2.0 communications technologies. Such communications increase the potential for criminal and civil consequences in numerous jurisdictions. The ability of injured parties (famous or not) to seek redress in the most appropriate forum for the purposes of protecting their private lives and reputations is acutely significant.6

scholarly journals Cross-Border Conversions in the European Union After the Polbud Case

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-77
Author(s):  
Iryna Basova
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Freedom Of Establishment ◽  
Member States ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
A Company ◽  
Legislative Measures

Cross-border conversions may be considered as an achievement of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU, Court) since its case law paves the way towards acceptance of such cross-border operations in all Member States. In the Polbud case, the CJEU clarified the scope of the freedom of establishment in regard to cross-border conversions. That judgement should give an impulse to those Member States whose law remains silent on the issue, lacks regulation or is not in line with the provisions on the freedom of establishment, to take appropriate legislative measures. However, a creation of a legal framework at the European level is still needed to provide a commonly-accepted procedure for such operations, to secure protection for vulnerable constituencies of a company, to prevent abusive practices and to regulate cooperation between the states which are involved in cross-border conversions.

scholarly journals The CJEU as an Innovator – a New Perspective on the Development of Internet Related Case-law

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ulf Maunsbach
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Related Case ◽  
Existing Problems ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Innovative Process ◽  
New Perspective

In this paper I will use concepts from innovation theory to analyse the work of the Court of Justice of the European Union in its important role as sole interpreter of EU law. In that regard, I define ‘innovator’ as one that facilitates use of new or existing inventions. Thus innovation is portrayed as a process in which several actors may contribute and where it all starts with an invention (the solution) and it ends with the innovation (the process of making use of the invention). The Court of Justice of the European Union may be an inventor in as much as it is allowed to invent solutions in order to solve new or existing problems, and it may be innovative in as much as it hands down judgments that shall be followed (i.e. it makes use of the invention).The substance of the paper deals with case-law from the Court of Justice of the European Union in the field of cross-border infringements. The cases will be analysed in relation to the idea that legal decision-making can be described as an innovative process. An approach like this makes it possible to draw conclusions regarding the Court of Justice of the European Unions ability to innovate. It will be apparent that the Court is primarily concerned with so called reactive innovation (i.e. innovation that builds on existing knowledge). Only in exceptional circumstances do we find examples where the Court has proved to conduct in proactive innovation (i.e. inventing and applying new solutions) and this may, according to the author, prove to be a preferred standard. Better to drive safely than to drive in the ditch.

scholarly journals Cross-Border Remote B2C Contracts in the Practice of the Court of Justice of the European Union: Is the Consumer always Right?

Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 130-138
Author(s):  
O. V. Sergeeva
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Place Of Residence ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Economic Entity ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Business To Consumer ◽  
Mail Address

The paper analyzes the legal positions of the Court of the European Union, developed when considering disputes arising from cross-border remote B2C (business to consumer) contracts. In particular, the criteria proposed by the Court of the European Union for determining the “orientation” of the professional party’s activity to the country of the consumer’s place of residence are being investigated. Based on the study of the practice of the Court of Justice of the European Union, it is concluded that consumers in the European Union are provided with increased legal protection as an economically weak party.The author summarizes that the Court of the European Union has developed a number of legal positions. In particular, the Court proposed an open list of criteria for determining the “direction” of the professional party’s activities to the country of the consumer’s place of residence. In addition, it was noted that the “direction of the professional party’s activities when concluding remote contracts is evidenced by the website that reads that the professional party implied the implementation of transactions with consumers residing in one or more member States, including the member State of the consumer’s place of residence. However, the mere fact of having access to the website of an intermediary or entrepreneur in the member state in which the consumer resides is not enough. The same applies to the indication of an e-mail address or other contact information, or the use of a language or currency that is usually used in the Member State of the place of establishment of an economic entity, which corresponds to paragraph 24 of the preamble to the Rome I Regulation.

scholarly journals Pozycja prawna notariusza w sprawach spadkowych o charakterze transgranicznym Glosa do wyroku Trybunału Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej w sprawie C-658/17 WB

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. 303-317
Author(s):  
Kinga Konieczna
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Definition ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Legal Classification

The commentary presents an analysis of a thesis presented by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Judgment of 23rd of May 2018. The question referred to the Court in case C-658/17 WB concerned legal definition of a ‚court’ and legal classification of the national deed of certification of succession under the provisions of Regulation(EU) No 650/2012. The Judgment states that notary in Poland that draw up a deed of certificate of succession at the unanimous request of all the parties, does not constitute a ‚court’ within the meaning of that provision. Subsequently, a deed drawn up by such authority does not constitute a ‘decision’ within the meaning of that provision. The Judgment is particularly relevant since its impact extends to national certificates of succession issued by notaries in other countries, that are part of the Latin part notary system. In conclusion it is indicated, that the Judgment rendered by Tribunal, although highly rightful, relates to merely one of numerous issues concerning use of authentic documents in cross-border succession cases.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document