Unquestionably, the most important judgment last week was Scarlet Extended v. Sabam, the internet privacy case. Internet Service Providers cannot be made to police the use of peer-to-peer file sharing software among their customers, because such a requirement would violate both the rights of the ISPs and of their customers. Cf. EUObserver, bbc.co.uk.
On the other hand, the Court did strike down a Spanish Royal Decree that gave data subjects a greater level of protection than what was foreseen by the Data Protection Directive 95/46. Apparently the Directive aims at full harmonisation on this point. Asociación Nacional de Establecimientos Financieros de Crédito
The Court sided with the Commission on the alternative modes of TV-advertising used in Spain, “such as telepromotions, advertorials, overlays, sponsorship credits, micro‑ads comparable to advertorials, self‑promotional spots, virtual advertising and public service advertising”. They do count as advertising, putting Spain in violation of the maximum amount of time allowed for that purpose by art. 18(2) of Directive 89/552.
In Medeva and in Georgetown University and others, the Court gives some guidance as to the correct interpretation of art. 3 of Regulation 469/2009 on the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products.
For some reason, Italy apparently decided to ignore the whole Factortame/Brasserie du Pêcheur line of cases. Commission v. Italy (FR, IT)
In anti-terrorism news, the General Court rejected Jose Maria Sison’s claim for compensation based on the unlawful freezing of his assets. Sison v. Council
In Jones and others v. Commission, the General Court dives into the pre-1990 British Coal market. Curiously, the applicant’s claim is rejected, but the Commission is still ordered to pay their costs.
The Commission’s Decision not to go after the producers of ink cartridges and toners for competition law violations was upheld in EFIM v. Commission.
No comments:
Post a Comment