Gibt es ein Europäisches Verwaltungsrecht?

Der Beitrag schildert an Beispielen aus der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs (EuGH), wie sich ausgehend von der Regel, dass jeder Mitgliedstaat das Gemeinschaftsrecht nach eigenem nationalstaatlichen Verwaltungsrecht vollzieht (sog. Vollzugskompetenz der Mitgliedstaaten) in den letzten Jahren gleichwohl Ansätze eines gemeinsamen Europäischen Verwaltungsrechts entwickelt haben. Hierbei werden zunächst die Wirkungsweisen des Effektivitätsgebotes und des Diskriminierungsverbotes erläutert, die als Grund legende Prinzipen dem nationalen Verwaltungsvollzug zugrunde liegen müssen. Daneben erläutert der Beitrag als weitere systematische Grundstrukturen, die für eine gleichmäßige Anwendung des Verwaltungsrechts in allen Mitgliedstaaten kennzeichnend sind, exemplarisch den Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit, den Grundsatz des Vertrauensschutzes und den Grundsatz der Rechtssicherheit. Im Fazit konstatiert der Verfasser eine durch den EuGH forcierte Rechtsfortbildung, die sich deutlich in Richtung auf ein sich ständig verdichtendes Europäisches Verwaltungsrecht weiterentwickelt.

Software als Schutzgegenstand des Europäischen Urheberrechts

After 20 years of silence, two recent references from the Czech Republic (Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace, Case C-393/09) and from the English High Court (SAS Institute, Case C-406/10) touch upon several questions that are fundamental for the extent of copyright protection for software under the Computer Program Directive 91/25 (now 2009/24) and the Information Society Directive 2001/29. In Case C-393/09, the European Court of Justice held that “the object of the protection conferred by that directive is the expression in any form of a computer program which permits reproduction in different computer languages, such as the source code and the object code.” As “any form of expression of a computer program must be protected from the moment when its reproduction would engender the reproduction of the computer program itself, thus enabling the computer to perform its task,” a graphical user interface (GUI) is not protected under the Computer Program Directive, as it does “not enable the reproduction of that computer program, but merely constitutes one element of that program by means of which users make use of the features of that program.” While the definition of computer program and the exclusion of GUIs mirror earlier jurisprudence in the Member States and therefore do not come as a surprise, the main significance of Case C-393/09 lies in its interpretation of the Information Society Directive. In confirming that a GUI “can, as a work, be protected by copyright if it is its author’s own intellectual creation,” the ECJ continues the Europeanization of the definition of “work” which began in Infopaq (Case C-5/08). Moreover, the Court elaborated this concept further by excluding expressions from copyright protection which are dictated by their technical function. Even more importantly, the ECJ held that a television broadcasting of a GUI does not constitute a communication to the public, as the individuals cannot have access to the “essential element characterising the interface,” i.e., the interaction with the user. The exclusion of elements dictated by technical functions from copyright protection and the interpretation of the right of communication to the public with reference to the “essential element characterising” the work may be seen as welcome limitations of copyright protection in the interest of a free public domain which were not yet apparent in Infopaq. While Case C-393/09 has given a first definition of the computer program, the pending reference in Case C-406/10 is likely to clarify the scope of protection against nonliteral copying, namely in how far the protection extends beyond the text of the source code to the design of a computer program and where the limits of protection lie as regards the functionality of a program and mere “principles and ideas.” In light of the travaux préparatoires, it is submitted that the ECJ is also likely to grant protection for the design of a computer program, while excluding both the functionality and underlying principles and ideas from protection under the European copyright directives.

Copyright Exhaustion Rationales and Used Software: A Law and Economics Approach to Oracle v. UsedSoft

This article aims to provide courts and policymakers with an analytical framework that, building upon the traditional rationales of IP exhaustion doctrine, identifies factors which advocate for a modulation or flexibilization of the role of exhaustion in copyright law. Factors include (i) the personal features of acquirers of copies of copyrighted works, distinguishing between consumers and commercial users; (ii) whether post-sale restrictions have been adequately communicated to acquirers and have been agreed in the contract or license; (iii) the degree of complexity of the acquired goods and their prospects of productive uses and interoperability; (iv) the role of other exclusive rights in providing rightholders with indirect control over uses of the copies in the aftermarket; (v) the impact of post-sale restraints in preventing opportunism in long-term contracts and in reducing deadweight losses created by IP pricing; and (vi) the temporal scope of post-sale restraints. After setting out this analytical framework, the ECJ Judgement in Oracle v. UsedSoft is discussed.

Oblivion, Erasure and Forgetting in the Digital Age

In light of the recent European Court of Justice ruling (ECJ C-131/12, Google Spain v Spanish Data Protection Agency),the “right to be forgotten” has once again gained worldwide media attention. Already in 2012, whenthe European Commission proposed aright to be forgotten,this proposal received broad public interest and was debated intensively. Under certain conditions, individuals should thereby be able todelete personal data concerning them. More recently – in light of the European Parliament’s approval of the LIBE Committee’samendments onMarch 14, 2014 – the concept seems tobe close to its final form.Although it remains, for the most part,unchanged from the previously circulated drafts, it has beenre-labelled as a“right of erasure”. This article argues that, despite its catchy terminology, the right to be forgotten can be understood as a generic term, bringing together existing legal provisions: the substantial right of oblivion and the rather procedural right to erasure derived from data protection. Hereinafter, the article presents an analysis of selected national legal frameworks and corresponding case law, accounting for data protection, privacy, and general tort law as well as defamation law. This comparative analysis grasps the practical challenges which the attempt to strengthen individual control and informational self-determination faces. Consequently, it is argued that narrowing the focus on the data protection law amendments neglects the elaborate balancing of conflicting interests in European legal tradition. It is shown thatthe attemptto implement oblivion, erasure and forgetting in the digital age is a complex undertaking.

Proportionality of Website Blocking: Internet Connectivity Providers as Copyright Enforcers

Internet connectivity providers have been ordered to block access to websites facilitating copyright infringement in various EU countries.In this paper, the proportionality of these enforcement measures is analysed. After addressing preliminary questions, the recent ECJ ruling UPC Telekabel Wien (C-314/12) and then case law from all Member States are examined from the perspective of proportionality. Finally, five criteria are submitted for proportionality analysis, and a proportionality evaluation is provided. The major observation is that the underlying goal of copyright enforcement has implications on how the scale tilts. In particular, ineffective enforcement mechanisms can be more easily accepted if the goal of symbolic, educational or politically motivated enforcement is considered legitimate. On the other hand, if the goal is to decrease the impact of infringement, higher efficiency and economically quantifiable results may be required

Personal Data and Encryption in the European General Data Protection Regulation

Encryption of personal data is widely regarded as a privacy preserving technology which could potentially play a key role for the compliance of innovative IT technology within the European data protection law framework. Therefore, in this paper, we examine the new EU General Data Protection Regulation’s relevant provisions regarding encryption – such as those for anonymisation and pseudonymisation – and assess whether encryption can serve as an anonymisation technique, which can lead to the non-applicability of the GDPR. However, the provisions of the GDPR regarding the material scope of the Regulation still leave space for legal uncertainty when determining whether a data subject is identifiable or not. Therefore, we inter alia assess the Opinion of the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) regarding a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the dispute concerning whether a dynamic IP address can be considered as personal data, which may put an end to the dispute whether an absolute or a relative approach has to be used for the assessment of the identifiability of data subjects. Furthermore, we outline the issue of whether the anonymisation process itself constitutes a further processing of personal data which needs to have a legal basis in the GDPR. Finally, we give an overview of relevant encryption techniques and examine their impact upon the GDPR’s material scope.