Document Actions
Citation and metadata
Recommended citation
Saulius Lukas Kalėda, The Role of the Principle of Effective Judicial Protection in Relation to Website Blocking Injunctions, 8 (2017) JIPITEC 216 para 1.
Download Citation
Endnote
%0 Journal Article %T The Role of the Principle of Effective Judicial Protection in Relation to Website Blocking Injunctions %A Kalėda, Saulius Lukas %J JIPITEC %D 2017 %V 8 %N 3 %@ 2190-3387 %F kalėda2017 %X The use of internet blocking to prevent access to illegal content requires the adoption of rigorous procedural safeguards. The necessity of such safeguards is even more pressing when this primarily public tool is transposed into the domain of private enforcement, for the purposes of supressing copyright and trademark infringements. Injunctions in the sphere of IP rights are governed by a net of interrelated EU legal provisions, contained in the Infosoc and the Enforcement directives (2001/29 and 2004/48), the E-Commerce directive (2000/31), and the EU net neutrality (open internet) rules (Regulation 2015/221). However, the core requirements stem from the application of the principle of proportionality and the search for a balance between competing fundamental rights. According to case law of the EU Court of Justice, the limitations upon injunctions in relation to IP rights are deduced in the process of balancing the substantive fundamental rights enshrined in the EU Charter: on the one hand, the right to the protection of intellectual property (Article 17(2)); and on the other, the freedom of expression and information (Article 11), the freedom to conduct business (Article 16), and the rights to privacy and to data protection (Articles 7 and 8). However, in relation to new types of injunctions potentially affecting the rights of multiple third parties, such as blocking injunctions, more weight should be given to procedural fundamental rights stemming from Article 47 of the Charter. This new perspective presents several advantages. Limitations resulting from Article 47 of the Charter constitute a stronger imperative than those deduced from the application of the principle of proportionality. To a large extent, they must be applied by the court of its own motion. In contrast to the principle of proportionality, fair trial requirements form part of European and national public policy provisions, potentially limiting mutual recognition of judicial decisions imposing injunctions. In the absence of harmonisation, the application of Article 47 of the Charter could therefore lead to the establishment of a minimum procedural standard, which can be invoked in order to achieve a certain degree of uniformity. This would be particularly important if blocking injunctions were to be used on an EU-wide basis. %L 340 %K Copyright enforcement %K injunctions %K judicial protection %K online intermediaries %K website blocking %U http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-46224 %P 216-225Download
Bibtex
@Article{kalėda2017,
author = "Kal{\.{e}}da, Saulius Lukas",
title = "The Role of the Principle of Effective Judicial Protection in Relation to Website Blocking Injunctions",
journal = "JIPITEC",
year = "2017",
volume = "8",
number = "3",
pages = "216--225",
keywords = "Copyright enforcement; injunctions; judicial protection; online intermediaries; website blocking",
abstract = "The use of internet blocking to prevent access to illegal content requires the adoption of rigorous procedural safeguards. The necessity of such safeguards is even more pressing when this primarily public tool is transposed into the domain of private enforcement, for the purposes of supressing copyright and trademark infringements. Injunctions in the sphere of IP rights are governed by a net of interrelated EU legal provisions, contained in the Infosoc and the Enforcement directives (2001/29 and 2004/48), the E-Commerce directive (2000/31), and the EU net neutrality (open internet) rules (Regulation 2015/221). However, the core requirements stem from the application of the principle of proportionality and the search for a balance between competing fundamental rights. According to case law of the EU Court of Justice, the limitations upon injunctions in relation to IP rights are deduced in the process of balancing the substantive fundamental rights enshrined in the EU Charter: on the one hand, the right to the protection of intellectual property (Article 17(2)); and on the other, the freedom of expression and information (Article 11), the freedom to conduct business (Article 16), and the rights to privacy and to data protection (Articles 7 and 8). However, in relation to new types of injunctions potentially affecting the rights of multiple third parties, such as blocking injunctions, more weight should be given to procedural fundamental rights stemming from Article 47 of the Charter. This new perspective presents several advantages. Limitations resulting from Article 47 of the Charter constitute a stronger imperative than those deduced from the application of the principle of proportionality. To a large extent, they must be applied by the court of its own motion. In contrast to the principle of proportionality, fair trial requirements form part of European and national public policy provisions, potentially limiting mutual recognition of judicial decisions imposing injunctions. In the absence of harmonisation, the application of Article 47 of the Charter could therefore lead to the establishment of a minimum procedural standard, which can be invoked in order to achieve a certain degree of uniformity. This would be particularly important if blocking injunctions were to be used on an EU-wide basis.",
issn = "2190-3387",
url = "http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-46224"
}
Download
RIS
TY - JOUR AU - Kalėda, Saulius Lukas PY - 2017 DA - 2017// TI - The Role of the Principle of Effective Judicial Protection in Relation to Website Blocking Injunctions JO - JIPITEC SP - 216 EP - 225 VL - 8 IS - 3 KW - Copyright enforcement KW - injunctions KW - judicial protection KW - online intermediaries KW - website blocking AB - The use of internet blocking to prevent access to illegal content requires the adoption of rigorous procedural safeguards. The necessity of such safeguards is even more pressing when this primarily public tool is transposed into the domain of private enforcement, for the purposes of supressing copyright and trademark infringements. Injunctions in the sphere of IP rights are governed by a net of interrelated EU legal provisions, contained in the Infosoc and the Enforcement directives (2001/29 and 2004/48), the E-Commerce directive (2000/31), and the EU net neutrality (open internet) rules (Regulation 2015/221). However, the core requirements stem from the application of the principle of proportionality and the search for a balance between competing fundamental rights. According to case law of the EU Court of Justice, the limitations upon injunctions in relation to IP rights are deduced in the process of balancing the substantive fundamental rights enshrined in the EU Charter: on the one hand, the right to the protection of intellectual property (Article 17(2)); and on the other, the freedom of expression and information (Article 11), the freedom to conduct business (Article 16), and the rights to privacy and to data protection (Articles 7 and 8). However, in relation to new types of injunctions potentially affecting the rights of multiple third parties, such as blocking injunctions, more weight should be given to procedural fundamental rights stemming from Article 47 of the Charter. This new perspective presents several advantages. Limitations resulting from Article 47 of the Charter constitute a stronger imperative than those deduced from the application of the principle of proportionality. To a large extent, they must be applied by the court of its own motion. In contrast to the principle of proportionality, fair trial requirements form part of European and national public policy provisions, potentially limiting mutual recognition of judicial decisions imposing injunctions. In the absence of harmonisation, the application of Article 47 of the Charter could therefore lead to the establishment of a minimum procedural standard, which can be invoked in order to achieve a certain degree of uniformity. This would be particularly important if blocking injunctions were to be used on an EU-wide basis. SN - 2190-3387 UR - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-46224 ID - kalėda2017 ER -Download
Wordbib
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <b:Sources SelectedStyle="" xmlns:b="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" xmlns="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" > <b:Source> <b:Tag>kalėda2017</b:Tag> <b:SourceType>ArticleInAPeriodical</b:SourceType> <b:Year>2017</b:Year> <b:PeriodicalTitle>JIPITEC</b:PeriodicalTitle> <b:Volume>8</b:Volume> <b:Issue>3</b:Issue> <b:Url>http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-46224</b:Url> <b:Pages>216-225</b:Pages> <b:Author> <b:Author><b:NameList> <b:Person><b:Last>Kalėda</b:Last><b:First>Saulius Lukas</b:First></b:Person> </b:NameList></b:Author> </b:Author> <b:Title>The Role of the Principle of Effective Judicial Protection in Relation to Website Blocking Injunctions</b:Title> <b:Comments>The use of internet blocking to prevent access to illegal content requires the adoption of rigorous procedural safeguards. The necessity of such safeguards is even more pressing when this primarily public tool is transposed into the domain of private enforcement, for the purposes of supressing copyright and trademark infringements. Injunctions in the sphere of IP rights are governed by a net of interrelated EU legal provisions, contained in the Infosoc and the Enforcement directives (2001/29 and 2004/48), the E-Commerce directive (2000/31), and the EU net neutrality (open internet) rules (Regulation 2015/221). However, the core requirements stem from the application of the principle of proportionality and the search for a balance between competing fundamental rights. According to case law of the EU Court of Justice, the limitations upon injunctions in relation to IP rights are deduced in the process of balancing the substantive fundamental rights enshrined in the EU Charter: on the one hand, the right to the protection of intellectual property (Article 17(2)); and on the other, the freedom of expression and information (Article 11), the freedom to conduct business (Article 16), and the rights to privacy and to data protection (Articles 7 and 8). However, in relation to new types of injunctions potentially affecting the rights of multiple third parties, such as blocking injunctions, more weight should be given to procedural fundamental rights stemming from Article 47 of the Charter. This new perspective presents several advantages. Limitations resulting from Article 47 of the Charter constitute a stronger imperative than those deduced from the application of the principle of proportionality. To a large extent, they must be applied by the court of its own motion. In contrast to the principle of proportionality, fair trial requirements form part of European and national public policy provisions, potentially limiting mutual recognition of judicial decisions imposing injunctions. In the absence of harmonisation, the application of Article 47 of the Charter could therefore lead to the establishment of a minimum procedural standard, which can be invoked in order to achieve a certain degree of uniformity. This would be particularly important if blocking injunctions were to be used on an EU-wide basis.</b:Comments> </b:Source> </b:Sources>Download
ISI
PT Journal AU Kalėda, S TI The Role of the Principle of Effective Judicial Protection in Relation to Website Blocking Injunctions SO JIPITEC PY 2017 BP 216 EP 225 VL 8 IS 3 DE Copyright enforcement; injunctions; judicial protection; online intermediaries; website blocking AB The use of internet blocking to prevent access to illegal content requires the adoption of rigorous procedural safeguards. The necessity of such safeguards is even more pressing when this primarily public tool is transposed into the domain of private enforcement, for the purposes of supressing copyright and trademark infringements. Injunctions in the sphere of IP rights are governed by a net of interrelated EU legal provisions, contained in the Infosoc and the Enforcement directives (2001/29 and 2004/48), the E-Commerce directive (2000/31), and the EU net neutrality (open internet) rules (Regulation 2015/221). However, the core requirements stem from the application of the principle of proportionality and the search for a balance between competing fundamental rights. According to case law of the EU Court of Justice, the limitations upon injunctions in relation to IP rights are deduced in the process of balancing the substantive fundamental rights enshrined in the EU Charter: on the one hand, the right to the protection of intellectual property (Article 17(2)); and on the other, the freedom of expression and information (Article 11), the freedom to conduct business (Article 16), and the rights to privacy and to data protection (Articles 7 and 8). However, in relation to new types of injunctions potentially affecting the rights of multiple third parties, such as blocking injunctions, more weight should be given to procedural fundamental rights stemming from Article 47 of the Charter. This new perspective presents several advantages. Limitations resulting from Article 47 of the Charter constitute a stronger imperative than those deduced from the application of the principle of proportionality. To a large extent, they must be applied by the court of its own motion. In contrast to the principle of proportionality, fair trial requirements form part of European and national public policy provisions, potentially limiting mutual recognition of judicial decisions imposing injunctions. In the absence of harmonisation, the application of Article 47 of the Charter could therefore lead to the establishment of a minimum procedural standard, which can be invoked in order to achieve a certain degree of uniformity. This would be particularly important if blocking injunctions were to be used on an EU-wide basis. ERDownload
Mods
<mods>
<titleInfo>
<title>The Role of the Principle of Effective Judicial Protection in Relation to Website Blocking Injunctions</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="family">Kalėda</namePart>
<namePart type="given">Saulius Lukas</namePart>
</name>
<abstract>The use of internet blocking to prevent access to illegal content requires the adoption of rigorous procedural safeguards. The necessity of such safeguards is even more pressing when this primarily public tool is transposed into the domain of private enforcement, for the purposes of supressing copyright and trademark infringements. Injunctions in the sphere of IP rights are governed by a net of interrelated EU legal provisions, contained in the Infosoc and the Enforcement directives (2001/29 and 2004/48), the E-Commerce directive (2000/31), and the EU net neutrality (open internet) rules (Regulation 2015/221). However, the core requirements stem from the application of the principle of proportionality and the search for a balance between competing fundamental rights. According to case law of the EU Court of Justice, the limitations upon injunctions in relation to IP rights are deduced in the process of balancing the substantive fundamental rights enshrined in the EU Charter: on the one hand, the right to the protection of intellectual property (Article 17(2)); and on the other, the freedom of expression and information (Article 11), the freedom to conduct business (Article 16), and the rights to privacy and to data protection (Articles 7 and 8). However, in relation to new types of injunctions potentially affecting the rights of multiple third parties, such as blocking injunctions, more weight should be given to procedural fundamental rights stemming from Article 47 of the Charter. This new perspective presents several advantages. Limitations resulting from Article 47 of the Charter constitute a stronger imperative than those deduced from the application of the principle of proportionality. To a large extent, they must be applied by the court of its own motion. In contrast to the principle of proportionality, fair trial requirements form part of European and national public policy provisions, potentially limiting mutual recognition of judicial decisions imposing injunctions. In the absence of harmonisation, the application of Article 47 of the Charter could therefore lead to the establishment of a minimum procedural standard, which can be invoked in order to achieve a certain degree of uniformity. This would be particularly important if blocking injunctions were to be used on an EU-wide basis.</abstract>
<subject>
<topic>Copyright enforcement</topic>
<topic>injunctions</topic>
<topic>judicial protection</topic>
<topic>online intermediaries</topic>
<topic>website blocking</topic>
</subject>
<classification authority="ddc">340</classification>
<relatedItem type="host">
<genre authority="marcgt">periodical</genre>
<genre>academic journal</genre>
<titleInfo>
<title>JIPITEC</title>
</titleInfo>
<part>
<detail type="volume">
<number>8</number>
</detail>
<detail type="issue">
<number>3</number>
</detail>
<date>2017</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>216</start>
<end>225</end>
</extent>
</part>
</relatedItem>
<identifier type="issn">2190-3387</identifier>
<identifier type="urn">urn:nbn:de:0009-29-46224</identifier>
<identifier type="uri">http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-46224</identifier>
<identifier type="citekey">kalėda2017</identifier>
</mods>
Download
Full Metadata
| Bibliographic Citation | Journal of intellectual property, information technology and electronic commerce law 8 (2017) 3 |
|---|---|
| Title |
The Role of the Principle of Effective Judicial Protection in Relation to Website Blocking Injunctions (eng) |
| Author | Saulius Lukas Kalėda |
| Language | eng |
| Abstract | The use of internet blocking to prevent access to illegal content requires the adoption of rigorous procedural safeguards. The necessity of such safeguards is even more pressing when this primarily public tool is transposed into the domain of private enforcement, for the purposes of supressing copyright and trademark infringements. Injunctions in the sphere of IP rights are governed by a net of interrelated EU legal provisions, contained in the Infosoc and the Enforcement directives (2001/29 and 2004/48), the E-Commerce directive (2000/31), and the EU net neutrality (open internet) rules (Regulation 2015/221). However, the core requirements stem from the application of the principle of proportionality and the search for a balance between competing fundamental rights. According to case law of the EU Court of Justice, the limitations upon injunctions in relation to IP rights are deduced in the process of balancing the substantive fundamental rights enshrined in the EU Charter: on the one hand, the right to the protection of intellectual property (Article 17(2)); and on the other, the freedom of expression and information (Article 11), the freedom to conduct business (Article 16), and the rights to privacy and to data protection (Articles 7 and 8). However, in relation to new types of injunctions potentially affecting the rights of multiple third parties, such as blocking injunctions, more weight should be given to procedural fundamental rights stemming from Article 47 of the Charter. This new perspective presents several advantages. Limitations resulting from Article 47 of the Charter constitute a stronger imperative than those deduced from the application of the principle of proportionality. To a large extent, they must be applied by the court of its own motion. In contrast to the principle of proportionality, fair trial requirements form part of European and national public policy provisions, potentially limiting mutual recognition of judicial decisions imposing injunctions. In the absence of harmonisation, the application of Article 47 of the Charter could therefore lead to the establishment of a minimum procedural standard, which can be invoked in order to achieve a certain degree of uniformity. This would be particularly important if blocking injunctions were to be used on an EU-wide basis. |
| Subject | Copyright enforcement, injunctions, judicial protection, online intermediaries, website blocking |
| DDC | 340 |
| Rights | DPPL |
| URN: | urn:nbn:de:0009-29-46224 |
