Editorial sections
- Overview
- Banking and finance
- Commercial property
- Corporate and commercial
- Dispute resolution
- Employment
- Investment funds
- Private clients, trusts and tax
- Structured finance and securitisation
Other
- Directory
- Bar Directory
- Legal Developments
- In-house lawyers
- Services for Lawyers
- Press Releases
- Editorial guidelines
-
Law Firms
-
London
-
Corporate and commercial
- Overview
- Commercial contracts
- Corporate tax
- Customs and Excise
- EU and competition
- Equity capital markets: UK capability
- Equity capital markets: US capability
- Financial services
- Flotations: small and mid-cap
- M&A: premium deals, £250m+
- M&A: mid-market, £50m-£250m
- M&A: smaller deals, up to £50m
- Partnership
- Private equity: transactions
- VAT and indirect tax
- Venture capital
-
Corporate and commercial
- Crime, fraud and licensing
-
London
- Dispute resolution
- Overview
- Acquisition finance
- Asset finance and leasing
- Bank lending: investment grade debt and syndicated loans
- Commodities: derivatives
- Commodities: physicals
- Corporate restructuring and insolvency
- Debt capital markets
- Derivatives and structured products
- Emerging markets
- High yield
- Investment funds
- Islamic finance
- Securitisation
- Trade finance
- Overview
- Clinical negligence: claimant
- Clinical negligence: defendant
- Insurance: corporate and regulatory
- Insurance: insolvency and restructuring
- Insurance and reinsurance litigation
- Insurance litigation: for policyholders
- Personal injury: claimant
- Personal injury: defendant
- Product liability: claimant
- Product liability: defendant
- Professional negligence
- Agriculture and estates
- Charities
- Family: Thames Valley, Berks, Oxon, M4/M40
- Family: Kent, Surrey, Sussex
- Family: Hampshire
- Family: Beds, Bucks, Herts, Middx
- Family: Essex
- Personal tax, trusts and probate: Thames Valley, Berks, Oxon, M4/M40
- Personal tax, trusts and probate: Kent, Surrey, Sussex
- Personal tax, trusts and probate: Hampshire
- Personal tax, trusts and probate: Beds, Bucks, Herts, Middx
- Personal tax, trusts and probate: Essex
The Bar
-
London Bar
- Treasury Panel Lists
- Administrative and public law (including local government)
- Aviation
- Banking and finance (including consumer credit and financial regulation)
- Charities
- Children law (including public and private law)
- Civil liberties and human rights (including public inquiry law and actions against the police)
- Clinical negligence and healthcare
- Commercial litigation
- Commodities
- Company and partnership
- Construction
- Consumer
- Costs
- Crime
- Defamation and privacy
- EU and competition
- Education
- Employment
- Energy
- Environment
- Family law (including divorce and ancillary relief)
- Fraud: civil
- Fraud: crime (including money laundering and asset forfeiture)
- Health and safety
- Immigration (including business immigration)
- Information technology
- Insolvency
- Insurance and reinsurance
- Intellectual property
- International arbitration
- Licensing
- Media, entertainment and sport
- Pensions
- Personal injury
- Planning
- Private client: personal tax
- Private client: trusts and probate
- Product liability
- Professional discipline and regulatory law (including police law)
- Professional negligence
- Property litigation (including agriculture and housing)
- Public international law
- Shipping
- Tax: corporate and VAT
- Other New Silks
- Regional Bar
- Northern Circuit
All countries
- Albania
- Algeria
- Angola
- Anguilla
- Argentina
- Armenia
- Aruba
- Australia
- Austria
- Azerbaijan
- Bahamas
- Bahrain
- Bangladesh
- Belarus
- Belgium
- Belize
- Benin
- Bermuda
- Bolivia
- Bosnia-Herzegovina
- Botswana
- Brazil
- British Virgin Islands
- Bulgaria
- Burkina Faso
- Cambodia
- Cameroon
- Canada
- Cape Verde
- Cayman Islands
- Chad
- Chile
- China
- Colombia
- Congo
- Costa Rica
- Croatia
- Curacao
- Cyprus
- Czech Republic
- Côte d'Ivoire
- Denmark
- Dominican Republic
- Ecuador
- Egypt
- El Salvador
- Estonia
- Ethiopia
- Faroe Islands
- Finland
- France
- Georgia
- Germany
- Ghana
- Gibraltar
- Greece
- Greenland
- Guatemala
- Guernsey
- Guinea
- Honduras
- Hong Kong
- Hungary
- Iceland
- India
- Indonesia
- Iran
- Iraq
- Ireland
- Isle of Man
- Israel
- Italy
- Japan
- Jersey
- Jordan
- Kazakhstan
- Kenya
- Kosovo
- Kuwait
- Kyrgyzstan
- Laos
- Latin America: International firms
- Latvia
- Lebanon
- Lesotho
- Libya
- Liechtenstein
- Lithuania
- Luxembourg
- Macedonia
- Madagascar
- Malawi
- Malaysia
- Mali
- Malta
- Mauritius
- Mexico
- Moldova
- Monaco
- Mongolia
- Montenegro
- Morocco
- Mozambique
- Myanmar
- Namibia
- Netherlands
- Netherlands Antilles
- New Zealand
- Nicaragua
- Niger
- Nigeria
- Norway
- Oman
- Pakistan
- Panama
- Papua New Guinea
- Paraguay
- Peru
- Philippines
- Poland
- Portugal
- Qatar
- Romania
- Russia
- Rwanda
- Saint Martin
- Saudi Arabia
- Senegal
- Serbia
- Seychelles
- Singapore
- Slovakia
- Slovenia
- South Africa
- South Korea
- Spain
- Sri Lanka
- St Barts
- St Vincent
- Sudan
- Swaziland
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Syria
- São Tomé E PrÃncipe
- Taiwan
- Tanzania
- Thailand
- Tunisia
- Turkey
- United Kingdom
- Uganda
- Ukraine
- United Arab Emirates
- United States
- Uruguay
- Uzbekistan
- Venezuela
- Vietnam
- Yemen
- Zambia
- Zimbabwe
Search News and Articles
No obligation to set up filtering systems in order to prevent copyright violations
ECJ, decision of February 16th, 2012, ref. C-360/10 – SABAM
Basic facts
By way of a preliminary ruling, the European Court of Justice has determined that European law must be interpreted as precluding an injunction by which a social network operator would be required to install a system for filtering user information which applies indiscriminately to all users, as a preventive measure, for an unlimited period of time in order to detect any instances of copyright infringement.
Details
In the main proceedings, the SABAM, a Belgium management company which represents authors, composers and publishers of musical works, has raised a claim for injunctive relief against the operators of a social network (Netlog) regarding the unlawful provision of works from SABAM's repertoire. Inter alia, Netlog allows its registered users to publish, by means of their profile, photographs and video clips.
Netlog argued that this claim would, in effect, create a general obligation for the company to monitor its users which would contravene the Electronic Commerce Directive. Moreover, Netlog claimed that such an obligation would amount to the need of setting up a preventive filtering system to screen all user information at its own expense for an indefinite period of time in order to block files where necessary. In this context, also personal data would have to be processed.
The Court of First Instance, Brussels referred the matter to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. The ECJ ruled that indeed an injunction against a social network operator as demanded by SABAM would be contrary to European law. In its findings the European Court of Justice essentially states that the setting up of a filtering system as outlined above obliges the provider to actively monitor almost all data of its users. However, according to Article 15 (1) of the Electronic Commerce Directive there is no such general monitoring obligation. Furthermore, the contested filtering system may interfere with the basic rights of social network users (freedom of information, protection of personal data) und may, also for this reason, not be set up in an unrestricted and permanent way.
Appraisal
The European Court of Justice has - also interesting in the context of the current discussion concerning ACTA - by making a sweeping blow referring to all relevant directives dealing with protective rights in the context of electronic commerce, positioned itself clearly and unambiguously: Any unrestrained filtering and monitoring system in the sense of "Big brother is watching you", which ultimately "only" serves the purpose of enforcing claims for injunctive relief or damages under civil
law, is - with specific reference to the social network users' fundamental rights - not consistent with European law. We confidently approve of this decision of the European Court of Justice.. Such groundless and far-reaching monitoring by private companies are hardly consistent with the basic principles of European law.
Please note:
This decision, directly, only applies to social network operators and consequently also to other hosting providers. However, there are remarkable consequences beyond that: Providers do not have to set up expensive filtering systems - consequently, users will not be burdened with such costs. For the holders of intellectual property rights and their copyright collecting societies, the situation remains as it is now: They will have to investigate and prove any infringements of rights and take appropriate measures according to the general provisions.
Dr. Christian Berger
avocado rechtsanwälte partnerschaft
schillerstrasse 20
d-60313 frankfurt am main
t +49 69 91 33 01 131
c.berger@avocado-law.com
www.avocado-law.com
For more information please visit www.avocado-law.com