scholarly journals THE PARODY EXCEPTION: CAN IT JUSTIFY A 100 PERCENT COPY IF IT HAPPENS IN THE CONTEXT OF A COMPOSITE WORK SUCH AS MUSIC VIDEOS?

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Adriana Henriques
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Music Videos ◽  
Artistic Expression ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

Parody is a genre of artistic expression that has been recognized in the EU as an exception to copyright on the grounds of freedom of expression and the right to criticize. In the case of music videos, where image, music and lyrics are essential, the copying of one of those elements, namely the music, may be justified by the application of the exception. Thus, in this article we will study the parody exception in order to reflect on how the copy is justified and present some arguments in that sense. For this purpose, we will give a brief background of the system of copyright exceptions under EU law, from where we will move on to the analysis of the exception that matters to us. Finally, we will focus on parody in music videos, where we will weave our reflections.

scholarly journals The Contributions Of CJEU In The Name Of The Principle Of Balancing – A Test Of The Role Of The Court?

2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 472-478
Author(s):  
Gina Orga-Dumitriu
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Private Life ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Effective Protection ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

Abstract From the traditional functions of the general principles of the EU law – of interpretation, completion of the gaps and legality control, the principle of balancing seems to meet the most the exigencies of the first of these. The limits of the role of CJEU are certainly put to the test when it is called to settle conflicts between fundamental rights/fundamental freedoms. The trends formulated in Schmidberger (on the conflict between the free circulation of the commodities and the freedom of expression) or Promusicae (on the conflict between the right to the effective protection of the intellectual property and the right to the respect of the private life and the protection of the personal data) are more than illustrative. The doctrine assessments of the action of this principle reflect three fields in which the applicability thereof tends to reserve to the Court a role that is susceptible of creating controversies on its traditional extension. According to the authorized voice of Professor Norbert Reich, the balancing in the jurisprudence on the abusive clauses, the balancing for the avoidance of excessive protection and the balancing in social conflicts (making visible an aggravation of the conflict between fundamental rights and fundamental freedoms) are concerned.

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.

L'azione dell'Unione europea contro le discriminazioni basate sulla religione: l'impatto della giurisprudenza della Corte europea dei diritti umani

2012 ◽  
pp. 475-511
Author(s):  
Federico Casolari
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
General Framework ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

Law Although EU law has established a general framework concerning the fight against discriminations on the grounds of religion (namely as far as equal treatment in employment and occupation is concerned), the related ECJ case law is not very rich. This article tracks and evaluates the impact of the ECHR case law devoted to the freedom of religion on the interpretation and application of EU law concerning religion discriminations. It argues that the ECHR case law may contribute to identify the notion of ‘religion' which is relevant for EU law, while several arguments may be put forward against the application of the Strasbourg approach to the balancing between the right to quality based on religion and others human rights into the EU legal order.

scholarly journals The independence and impartiality of the hybrid CETA Investment Court System: Reflections in the aftermath of Opinion 1/17

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Fanou
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Judicial Independence ◽  
Court System ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access ◽  
The Eu

In its recent Opinion 1/17, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) examined the compatibility of an external judicial body, the Investment Court System (ICS) under the EU–Canada Comprehensive and Economic Trade Agreement (CETA), with EU law. At a time when judicial independence has arisen as one of the main challenges for the rule of law in the EU, this article discusses the Court’s findings in relation to the compatibility of the ICS with the right of access to an independent and impartial tribunal.

scholarly journals Google LLC v. Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL)

2020 ◽  
Vol 114 (2) ◽  
pp. 261-267
Author(s):  
Monika Zalnieriute
Keyword(s):  
Search Engine ◽  
Data Privacy ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Data ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

In Google LLC v. Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU or Court) held that the EU law only requires valid “right to be forgotten” de-referencing requests to be carried out by a search engine operator on search engine versions accessible in EU member states, as opposed to all versions of its search engine worldwide. While the ruling has been perceived as a “win” for Google and other interveners, such as Microsoft and the Wikimedia Foundation, who argued against worldwide de-referencing, the Court also made clear that that while the EU law does not currently require worldwide de-referencing, “it also does not prohibit such a practice” (para. 72). As a result, the CJEU found that an order by a national supervisory or judicial authority of an EU member state requiring worldwide de-referencing in accordance with its own national data protection laws would not be inconsistent with EU law where the data subject's right to privacy is adequately balanced against the right to freedom of information. By leaving the door to extraterritorial de-referencing wide open, the CJEU continues to pursue its post-Snowden hard-line stance on data privacy in a manner that is likely to transform the data privacy landscape.

The Relation between the Charter's Fundamental Rights and the Unwritten General Principles of EU Law: Good Administration as the Test Case

2013 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herwig C.H. Hofmann ◽  
C. Mihaescu
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Test Case ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Multiple Sources ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Right To Good Administration ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU – Multiple sources of fundamental rights in the EU legal system – Non-hierarchical, pluralistic understanding of their interrelationship – Case study: the right to good administration – Difficulties in defining the scope of the right to good administration under the Charter and that of the right to good administration as a general principle of EU law – Adoption of a pluralistic understanding of the EU fundamental rights’ sources allows for a clarification and improved understanding of the individual's rights in the EU legal system

scholarly journals Prawo do prywatności osób prawnych podczas kontroli przedsiębiorstwa dokonywanej przez Komisję Europejską

2017 ◽  
Vol 107 ◽  
pp. 11-25
Author(s):  
Marta De Bazelaire De Ruppierre
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Right To Privacy ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF LEGAL PERSONS DURING THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION’S INSPECTIONSThe paper aims to discuss the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by the EU institutions in competition law proceedings, showing as an example the respect for the right to privacy of undertakings during the inspections carried out by the European Commission. Although exercising the control powers of the Commission potentially collides with a number of fundamental rights expressed in the Charter, it is the analysis of Art. 7 CFR that allows to depict the evolution of the EU’s approach to privacy of legal persons, showing the accompanying judicial dialogue, or lack thereof, between the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the EU. The article short-defines the dawn raids, examines the application of Article 7 CFR to legal persons, highlighting the aspects of protection of domicile and secrecy of correspondence, compares the standards provided by ECHR and EU law, pondering also on how the CFR guarantees can be provided and effectively controlled. It also reflects on the issue whether the Court of Justice has a forerunner role in promoting fundamental rights of undertakings in matters of competition law.

scholarly journals Recenzja książki Vasiliki Kosta, Fundamental Rights in EU Internal Market Legislation, Oxford and Portland, Oregon 2015, 330 s.

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 261-270
Author(s):  
Joanna Ryszka
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Personal Data Protection ◽  
Basic Rights ◽  
Scientific Analysis ◽  
The Right ◽  
Integration Area ◽  
The Eu

Implementation of the internal market is one of the basic aims of cooperation between Member States within the EU, being at the same time an integration area that is perceived positively by both their supporters and opponents. Issues related to the implementation of the internal market freedoms are even more interesting in its confrontation with the protection of fundamental rights. This is undoubtedly a significant issue when we think about the degree of identification of the Union citizens with the Union itself. The reviewed monograph takes all the above-mentioned elements, focusing in particular on examining how and to what extent the protection of these rights is implemented in the EU legislation on the internal market. The scientific analysis carried out within its scope covered such important and basic rights as personal data protection, freedom of expression, basic rights related to the performance of work and the right to health protection.

The Right To Be Forgotten

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward L. Carter
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Search Engines ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Concept ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

The right to be forgotten is an emerging legal concept allowing individuals control over their online identities by demanding that Internet search engines remove certain results. The right has been supported by the European Court of Justice, some judges in Argentina, and data-protection regulators in several European countries, among others. The right is primarily grounded in notions of privacy and data protection but also relates to intellectual property, reputation, and right of publicity. Scholars and courts cite, as an intellectual if not legal root for the right to be forgotten, the legal principle that convicted criminals whose sentences are completed should not continually be publicly linked with their crimes. Critics contend that the right to be forgotten stands in conflict with freedom of expression and can lead to revisionist history. Scholars and others in the southern cone of South America, in particular, have decried the right to be forgotten because it could allow perpetrators of mass human rights abuses to cover up or obscure their atrocities. On the other hand, those in favor of the right to be forgotten say that digital technology preserves memory unnaturally and can impede forgiveness and individual progress. The right to be forgotten debate is far from resolved and poses difficult questions about access to, and control of, large amounts of digital information across national borders. Given the global nature of the Internet and the ubiquity of certain powerful search engines, the questions at issue are universal, but solutions thus far have been piecemeal. Although a 2014 decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union (EU) garnered much attention, the right to be forgotten has been largely shaped by a 1995 European Union Directive on Data Protection. In 2016, the EU adopted a new General Data Protection Regulation that will take effect in 2018 and could have a major impact because it contains an explicit right to be forgotten (also called right to erasure). The new regulation does not focus on the theoretical or philosophical justification for a right to be forgotten, and it appears likely the debate over the right in the EU and beyond will not be resolved even when the new rule takes effect.

Article 7 of the Directive 2012/13/EU on the Right to Information in Criminal Proceedings: A Missed Opportunity to Ensure Equality of Arms in Pre-Trial Proceedings?

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 126-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Pivaty ◽  
Anneli Soo
Keyword(s):  
Significant Role ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Member States ◽  
Early Access ◽  
Right To Information ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access ◽  
Missed Opportunity ◽  
The Eu

This article critically examines the EU law provisions on the right of access to the materials of the case in pre-trial criminal proceedings (Article 7 of Directive 2012/13/EU). It argues that they are insufficient to ensure adequate protection of this right in Member States. Furthermore, the approach chosen by EU legislator did not properly implement the European principle of the equality of arms in pre-trial proceedings. It is submitted that a clearer standard is needed to ensure an appropriate balance between the interests of adequate protection of individual rights and of protecting safety and security. It is suggested that although some room for national interpretation is desirable, the right of early access to the case materials should be endorsed by all Member States with derogations applied sparingly and under specific circumstances. Here further guidelines from the cjeu play significant role in order to ensure equality of arms in pre-trial proceedings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document