91 results found

On 18 October 2012, the Court of Justice of the EU issued a preliminary ruling applying Directive 96/9/EC.

On 24 November 2011, the Court of Justice of the EU (the "ECJ") handed down its judgment in case 70/10 Scarlet v. SABAM.

On 26 February 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union ("ECJ") answered a preliminary question from the French Supreme Court in Christie's France SNC ("Christie's") v Syndicat national des antiquaires ("SNA").

On 16 May 2024, the Belgian Constitutional Court addressed the question whether the (amended) favorable copyright regime violates the principle of equality...

The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that a manufacturer of game consoles is protected against the circumvention of its technical protection measures only if such measures seek to prevent the use of illegal videogames.

On 5 December 2013, the European Commission launched a public consultation inviting stakeholders to share their views on the possible reform of EU copyright (the "Consultation").

In its judgment of 13 March 2013, the European Court of Human Rights (the "ECtHR") declared that exchange of information on the Internet is covered by a person’s right of freedom of expression, contained in Article 10 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (the "ECHR").

Two preliminary procedures pitting Apple Inc. ("Apple") against Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd ("Samsung Korea") and its affiliates illustrate interesting aspects of cross-border injunctions in the EU. Both procedures, one before the district court of Düsseldorf (Landesgericht Düsseldorf -the "German Court") and the other before the court of the Hague (Rechtbank ‘s Gravenhage – the "Dutch Court"), resulted in sharply contrasting decisions.

On 23 January 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) handed down its judgment on a preliminary reference from an Italian court (Tribunale di Milano), ruling that a manufacturer of game consoles is protected against the circumvention of its technical protection measures only if such measures seek to prevent the use of illegal videogames.

PR Aviation had cited Article 15 of Directive 96/9/EC, which affirms the mandatory nature of certain provisions by declaring null and void any contractual provision to the contrary.

On 12 December 2018, the EU General Court dismissed the application for annulment which Canal + SA had brought against a European Commission decision that had made commitments offered by Paramount Pictures Ltd ...

Hence, the ECJ found that the German law infringed both the InfoSoc Directive and the Enforcement Directive.

On 24 November 2011, the Court of Justice of the European Union ("ECJ") decided in Scarlet Extended SA ("Scarlet") vs. Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL ("SABAM") that Internet Service Providers ("ISP") cannot be compelled to install a filtering system that identifies and blocks all copyright infringing file sharing.

Collective management organisations ("CMOs") represent the combined copyrights of their members, with one society typically managing a given right or set of rights for all artists in a given country...

On 19 April 2012, the Court of Justice of the European Union ("ECJ") held that EU data protection rules do not preclude national legislation from providing that national courts can order IP address information to be provided to copyright owners whose rights have been infringed.

In the case at hand, a performing artist in a musical received a monthly compensation of EUR 400 in exchange for the assignment of his neighbouring rights.

On 22 October 2013, the Belgian Supreme Court (Hof van Cassatie/Cour de cassation) handed down a judgment concerning the obligation of internet providers to block access to the content hosted by the server connected to the domain name "thepiratebay.org".