The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is an institution of the European Union (EU). It is responsible, inter alia, for ensuring that EU law is interpreted and applied in a consistent way in all EU countries. If a national court is in doubt about the interpretation or validity of an EU law, it can ask the Court for clarification. The same mechanism can be used to determine whether a national law or practice is compatible with EU law. The CJEU also resolves legal disputes between national governments and EU institutions, and can take action against EU institutions on behalf of individuals, companies or organisations.
On 17 June 2021, the CJEU delivered its judgment in C-597/19 Mircom. It held that uploading (including automatic uploading) of pieces of a file containing a protected work on peer-to-peer (P2P) networks infringes the making available right under article 3(1) and (2) of the InfoSoc Directive when a user actively chooses to use sharing software…
Welcome to the second trimester of 2021 round up of EU copyright law! Apologies to readers that this one comes a bit late. In this series, we update readers every three months on developments in EU copyright law. This includes Court of Justice (CJEU) and General Court judgments, Advocate Generals’ (AG) opinions, and important policy…
The so-called “conditional irresponsibility” of online content-sharing service providers (OCSSPs) with regards to copyright infringements is a never-ending, vexing, and daunting topic not only for scholars (see here, here, here and here), but also for the European Court of Justice itself (CJEU). The latter has recently rendered its eagerly awaited decision on the joined cases…
As readers of this blog will be aware, on 22 June the European Court of Justice (CJEU) handed down its ruling in joined cases C-682/18 (YouTube) and C-683/18 (Cyando) concerning the liability of online platforms for copyright-infringing uploads made by their users. Two specific platforms were at issue: the popular video-sharing platform YouTube and Uploaded,…
In its long-awaited Opinion on an action brought by Poland to annul certain parts of Article 17 of the Directive on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (CDSM Directive), Advocate General (AG) Saugmandsgaard Øe demarcates the borders of permitted filtering of users’ uploads. If followed by the Court of Justice of the…
It certainly feels like the CDSM Directive has been the hottest topic in copyright law for quite some time now. If we had to be more specific and identify one main protagonist, the answer would unequivocally be: Article 17. Since its birth with the European Commission’s proposal, all the way through to the guidance from…
In Part 1 of this blog post, we explained the importance of the CJEU judgment in joined cases C-682/18 (YouTube) and C-683/18 (Cyando) for the application of copyright law, even after the introduction of a new copyright liability regime for certain online platforms through Art. 17 DSM Directive. In this part 2, we turn to…
The European Court of Justice (CJEU) ruling in joined cases C-682/18 (YouTube) and C-683/18 (Cyando), concerning platform liability for copyright-infringing user uploads under Art. 3 (1) InfoSoc Directive, has been eagerly awaited for a long time. Such a long time – almost a year has passed since the Advocate General opinion (see here) – that…
On 3 June 2021, the CJEU handed down its judgment in CV-Online Latvia v Melons (with Ilešič as a reporting judge), a case involving Melons’ infringement of CV-Online Latvia’s database of job advertisements arguably protected by the sui generis right. The facts of the case are expertly described by Tatiana Synodinou in her comment on the…
In May 2019 right after the adoption of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive, the Polish Government initiated a legal challenge before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) requesting the annulment of (parts of) Article 17. The Polish challenge claims that the application of the filtering obligations contained in Article…
