Freedom of Expression as an External Limitation to Copyright Law in the EU: The Advocate General of the CJEU Shows the Way

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christophe Geiger ◽  
Elena Izyumenko
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Advocate General ◽  
The Eu ◽  
The Way

Introductory Note

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guido Raimondi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
European Public ◽  
Introductory Note ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

This article comments on four important judgments given by the European Court of Human Rights in 2016. Al-Dulimi v. Switzerland addresses the issue of how, in the context of sanctions regimes created by the UN Security Council, European states should reconcile their obligations under the UN Charter with their obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights to respect the fundamentals of European public order. Baka v. Hungary concerns the separation of powers and judicial independence, in particular the need for procedural safeguards to protect judges against unjustified removal from office and to protect their legitimate exercise of freedom of expression. Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary is a judgment on the interpretation of the Convention, featuring a review of the “living instrument” approach. Avotiņš v. Latvia addresses the principle of mutual trust within the EU legal order and the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention.

Historical Writing in the Balkans

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ulf Brunnbauer
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
The Other ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
Historical Writing ◽  
The Balkans ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Balkan Countries ◽  
The One ◽  
The Way

This chapter analyzes historiography in several Balkan countries, paying particular attention to the communist era on the one hand, and the post-1989–91 period on the other. When communists took power in Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, and Yugoslavia in 1944–5, the discipline of history in these countries—with the exception of Albania—had already been institutionalized. The communists initially set about radically changing the way history was written in order to construct a more ideologically suitable past. In 1989–91, communist dictatorships came to an end in Bulgaria, Romania, Yugoslavia, and Albania. Years of war and ethnic cleansing would ensue in the former Yugoslavia. These upheavals impacted on historiography in different ways: on the one hand, the end of communist dictatorship brought freedom of expression; on the other hand, the region faced economic displacement.

scholarly journals The notion of ‘employer’: Towards a uniform European concept?

2021 ◽  
pp. 203195252199115
Author(s):  
Matthijs van Schadewijk
Keyword(s):  
Functional Approach ◽  
Working Relationships ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Corporate Groups ◽  
European Legislation ◽  
Contractual Approach ◽  
First Time ◽  
The Eu ◽  
The Way

The growth in multilateral working relationships (e.g. agency work, chains of sub-contracting and corporate groups) is causing Member States to increasingly scrutinise their traditional, contractual approach to the notion of ‘employer’. So far, little attention has been paid to the boundaries and limits that EU law sets when defining the employer. The lack of attention may have come to an end with the recent AFMB judgment, in which the Court ruled, for the first time, that the concept of employer in a provision of EU law had to be given an autonomous and uniform interpretation throughout the EU. Starting from the AFMB judgment, the author analyses the concept of employer in EU law. The author finds that the concept of employer in EU law can be described as ‘uniform in its functionality’: in EU law, the national concept of the employer is never absolute, but the circumstances and the way in which the national concept must be set aside depend on the context and the objective of the European legislation in question. Through this functional approach, EU law partly harmonises the various national approaches to the concept of the employer. Nevertheless, a lack of specific reasoning on the part of the Court may grant the Member States considerable leeway to uphold their own views on the concept.

Schengen: Quo Vadis?

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 178-197 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie De Somer
Keyword(s):  
Good Governance ◽  
Eu Policy ◽  
Border Regions ◽  
Implementation Practices ◽  
Quo Vadis ◽  
Border Controls ◽  
The Eu ◽  
The Way

Abstract The EU’s Schengen zone has been in crisis for over four years. This article critically reviews three scenarios on the way forward for the Schengen area that are currently circulating in the EU policy sphere. These include, first, proposals to improve the current rules on internal border checks within the Schengen Borders Code, either through reform or through better implementation practices. A second scenario relates to ideas on increasing the use of police checks in border regions as alternatives for internal border controls. A third scenario links to proposals on making access to the Schengen zone conditional on cooperation and good governance in the CEAS. It is submitted that the proposals in this third scenario are unfeasible for both political as well as legal reasons. More merit can be found in the discussions around the first two scenarios, albeit bearing in mind a number of important caveats.

Eliminating ‘Aesthetics’ from Copyright Law: The Aftermath of Cofemel

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Koray Güven
Keyword(s):  
Copyright Protection ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Applied Art ◽  
Copyright Laws ◽  
The One ◽  
Works Of Applied Art ◽  
Functionality Doctrine ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The recent Cofemel judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union extended the European Union’s (EU) originality criterion (i.e. the author’s own intellectual creation) to the realm of works of applied art. The Court excluded ‘aesthetically significant visual effect’ as a condition of copyright protection. It was condemned as subjective and incompatible with the EU originality criterion. The decision may signal a shift in several national copyright laws, under which requirements relating to ‘aesthetics’ are laid down as a condition to acquire protection. This article will demonstrate that the ‘aesthetics criterion’, as it emerged historically and has been employed in national copyright laws, is associated with a different meaning than it conveys at first glance. The aesthetics criterion designates the elbow room remaining to the author after functional constraints have been taken into account, and thus represents a form of the functionality doctrine in the domain of copyright law. However, to some extent it also excludes – though not uniformly – commonplace designs from the scope of copyright protection. Against this background, this article suggests that the aesthetics criterion can arguably be reconciled with the EU originality criterion. The aesthetics criterion represents a balance struck between the need for copyright protection in the field of applied arts, on the one hand, and competition, on the other. In order not to upset this careful balance, a robust application of the EU originality criterion is advocated, precluding protection not only to functionality, but also to commonplace creations.

scholarly journals INTERNATIONAL LAW ASPECTS OF GERMAN COPYRIGHT LAW (GCL)

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 93-98
Author(s):  
Юрий Юмашев ◽  
Yuriy Yumashev ◽  
Елена Постникова ◽  
Elena Postnikova
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
World Intellectual Property Organization ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Eu

The article deals with international law aspects of the GCL. To this aim firstly the international conventions on copyright law are analyzed, in particular: the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works in the wording of the Paris Act of 1971, the Convention on the Establishment of the World Intellectual Property Organization of 1967, the Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations of 1961 and Aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS) 1994. There is also an analysis of the EU copyright law in terms of its correlation with the law of the EU member-states and an assessment of its evolution. It is emphasized that the core fact of origin of authorship is determined on the basis of the national legislation of the Member-States. Special attention is paid to the scope of the “principle of exhausted rights”. The article also touches upon the aspect of private international law. Particular attention is paid to the legal regulation of the Internet, including Internet providers, and its impact on the formation of the GCL. The problem of combating Internet piracy is also raised, as copyright infringement often occurs in relation to works published online. In addition, the article revealed what changes were made to the GCL to comply with EU law (including secondary law acts and the practice of the EU Court). The result of the study is, among other things, the conclusion that special legal mechanisms should be developed to regulate new forms of selling works that have emerged as a result of technological progress and in the near future the Internet will undoubtedly form ways for the further development of the GCL. However, this process can negatively affect the leading role of the author as a creative person.

scholarly journals Copyright and Artificial Creation: Does EU Copyright Law Protect AI-Assisted Output?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Bernt Hugenholtz ◽  
João Pedro Quintais
Keyword(s):  
Original Work ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Step Test ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Eu Copyright Law ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis article queries whether and to what extent works produced with the aid of AI systems – AI-assisted output – are protected under EU copyright standards. We carry out a doctrinal legal analysis to scrutinise the concepts of “work”, “originality” and “creative freedom”, as well as the notion of authorship, as set forth in the EU copyright acquis and developed in the case-law of the Court of Justice. On this basis, we develop a four-step test to assess whether AI-assisted output qualifies as an original work of authorship under EU law, and how the existing rules on authorship may apply. Our conclusion is that current EU copyright rules are generally suitable and sufficiently flexible to deal with the challenges posed by AI-assisted output.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document