Why Cherry-Picking Never Leads to Harmonisation: The Case of the Limitations on Copyright under Directive 2001/29/EC

The article examines whether the norms laid down in the Directive in relation to the exceptions and limitations on copyright and related rights can be conducive to a sensible degree of harmonisation across the European Union. Before discussing the degree of harmonisation achieved so far by the Directive, the first part gives a short overview of the main characteristics of the list of exceptions and limitations contained in Article 5 of the Directive. A comprehensive review of the implementation of each limitation by the Member States is beyond the scope of this article. The following section takes a closer look at three examples of limitations that have led to legislative changes at the Member State level as express measures towards the implementation of the Information Society Directive, that is, the limitations for the benefit of libraries, for teaching and research, and for persons with a disability. These exceptions and limitations were later on also identified by the European Commission as key elements in the deployment of a digital knowledge economy. The analysis will show that the implementation of the provisions on limitations in the Information Society Directive did not, and probably cannot, yield the expected level of harmonisation across the European Union and that, as a consequence, there still exists a significant degree of uncertainty for the stakeholders regarding the extent of permissible acts with respect to copyright protected works.

Bittorent Loses Again: A Recent Lithuanian BitTorrent Case and What It Means for the Construction of the E-commerce Directive

This article first discusses a recent Lithuanian BitTorrent case, Linkomanija, with its shortcomings and perspectives. It then compares the outcomes of the Lithuanian case with recent court practice in Scandinavian countries (the Swedish Pirate Bay and Finnish Finreactor cases). Finally, it poses some questions as to whether BitTorrent sites should be qualified as hosting services under Article 14 of the EU E-commerce Directive (2000/31/EC) and whether the application of the limited liability standard, as developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union, would be reasonable for BitTorrent file-sharing services in general.

The Implementation of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive by National Regulatory Authorities National Responses to Regulatory Challenges

The Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) which regulates broadcasting and on-demand audiovisual media services is at the nexus of current discussions about the convergence of media. The Green Paper of the Commission of April 2013 reflects the struggle of the European Union to come to terms with the phenomenon of convergence and highlights current legal uncertainties. The (theoretical) quest for an appropriate and future-oriented regulatory framework at the European level may be contrasted to the practice of national regulatory authorities. When faced with new media services and new business models, national regulators will inevitably have to make decisions and choices that take into account providers’ interests to offer their services as well as viewers’ interests to receive information. This balancing act performed by national regulators may tip towards the former or latter depending on the national legal framework; social, political and economic considerations; as well as cultural perceptions. This paper thus examines how certain rules contained in the AVMSD are applied by national regulators. It focuses first on the definition of an on-demand audiovisual media service and its scope. Second, it analyses the measures adopted with a view to protection minors in on-demand services and third discusses national approaches towards the promotion of European works in on-demand services. It aims at underlining the significance of national regulatory authorities and the guidelines these adopt to clarify the rules of a key EU Directive of the “media law acquis”.

Under One Umbrella: Problems of Internet Retransmissions of Broadcasts and Implications for New Audiovisual Content Services

The development of broadband Internet connections has fostered new audiovisual media services and opened new possibilities for accessing broadcasts. The Internet retransmission case of TVCatchup before the CJEU was the first case concerning new technologies in the light of Art. 3.1. of the Information Society Directive. On the other side of the Atlantic the Aereo case reached the U.S. Supreme Court and challenged the interpretation of public performance rights. In both cases the recipients of the services could receive broadcast programs in a way alternative to traditional broadcasting channels including terrestrial broadcasting or cable transmission. The Aereo case raised the debate on the possible impact of the interpretation of copyright law in the context of the development of new technologies, particularly cloud based services. It is interesting to see whether any similar problems occur in the EU. The „umbrella” in the title refers to Art. 8 WCT, which covers digital and Internet transmission and constitutes the backrgound for the EU and the U.S. legal solutions. The article argues that no international standard for qualification of the discussed services exists.

The New Audiovisual Media Services Directive : Television without Frontiers, Television without Cultural Diversity

After long deliberations, the European Community (EC) has completed the reform of its audiovisual media regulation. The paper examines the main tenets of this reform with particular focus on its implications for the diversity of cultural expressions in the European media landscape. It also takes into account the changed patterns of consumer and business behaviour due to the advances in digital media and their wider spread in society. The paper criticises the somewhat unimaginative approach of the EC to new media and the political (and at times protectionist) considerations behind some of the Directive's provisions.

Risk assessment for the design of a risk-based surveillance programme for fish farms in Switzerland (in accordance with Council Directive 2006/88/EC of the European Union).

Swiss aquaculture farms were assessed according to their risk of acquiring or spreading viral haemorrhagic septicaemia (VHS) and infectious haematopoietic necrosis (IHN). Risk factors for the introduction and spread of VHS and IHN were defined and assessed using published data and expert opinions. Among the 357 aquaculture farms identified in Switzerland, 49.3% were categorised as high risk, 49.0% as medium risk and 1.7% as low risk. According to the new Directive 2006/88/EC for aquaculture of the European Union, the frequency of farm inspections must be derived from their risk levels. A sensitivity analysis showed that water supply and fish movements were highly influential on the output of the risk assessment regarding the introduction of VHS and IHN. Fish movements were also highly influential on the risk assessment output regarding the spread of these diseases.

Influencing the European Union from Outside. Switzerland, the European Water Framework Directive, and Micropollution Regulation in the Rhine River Basin

This paper sheds light on an unusual political influence mechanism, i.e. the influence of a non-EU member state on agendas and policies at the level of the EU and EU members states. Borrowing both from the literatures on policy diffusion as well as on the influence of small member states in EU decision-making, we argue that such an influence is fostered by both structural and agency-related factors. We illustrate this potential influence with a case study on the regulation of micropollutants in waterbodies. Adopting a mixed-method approach, we show that the upstream location of Switzerland, its integration into transnational networks as well as joint water basin institutions provides the country with structural opportunities to diffuse policy innovation to the EU’s policy agenda and member states’ policies. In addition, agency-related factors matter as the EU or member states can point to Switzerland as a successful example or pioneer, especially since the Swiss policy is in line with an overall EU strategy on reducing negative impacts of chemicals on humans and the environment.

River Restoration in Spain: Theoretical and Practical Approach in the Context of the European Water Framework Directive.

River restoration is becoming a priority in many countries because of increasing the awareness of environmental degradation. In Europe, the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) has significantly reinforced river restoration, encouraging the improvement of ecological status for water bodies. To fulfill the WFD requirements, the Spanish Ministry of the Environment developed in 2006 a National Strategy for River Restoration whose design and implementation are described in this paper. At the same time many restoration projects have been conducted, and sixty of them have been evaluated in terms of stated objectives and pressures and implemented restoration measures. Riparian vegetation enhancement, weir removal and fish passes were the most frequently implemented restoration measures, although the greatest pressures came from hydrologic alteration caused by flow regulation for irrigation purposes. Water deficits in quantity and quality associated with uncontrolled water demands seriously affect Mediterranean rivers and represent the main constraint to achieving good ecological status of Spanish rivers, most of them intensively regulated. Proper environmental allocation of in-stream flows would need deep restrictions in agricultural water use which seem to be of very difficult social acceptance. This situation highlights the need to integrate land-use and rural development policies with water resources and river management, and identifies additional difficulties in achieving the WFD objectives and good ecological status of rivers in Mediterranean countries.

Modelos de transposición de las Directivas 2002/91/CE y 2010/31/UE “Energy Performance Building Directive” en los Estados miembros de la UE. Consecuencias e implicaciones

Energy performance building directive? en los estados miembros de la UE. Consecuencias e implicaciones?