Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Code, Autonomous Concepts and Procedure: Stepping Stones for European Law?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Global Governance of Intellectual Property in the 21st Century

  • 1315 Accesses

Abstract

Two propositions are advanced in this paper as important to development of intellectual property in the European Union:

  1. 1.

    Judicial development of law is often seen as a feature of the common law (as opposed to civil law) world; but is at work in the European Union on intellectual property issues.

  2. 2.

    In intellectual property and related rights, procedure and remedies govern what issues come into prominence.

Examples of these in European Union law-making on intellectual property will be identified. Code or procedure have already driven developments in trade mark and design law through interpretation of European Union legislation, and in trade secrets where a proposed directive was arguably driven by the exclusion of trade secrets from Directive 2004/48/4EC on enforcement of intellectual property rights. When in operation, the Unitary Patent Regulations and the rules of the Unified Patents Court may become ‘stepping-stones’ for future development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    It may possibly exert influence in other areas of the world, especially where WTO TRIPs language derives from EU legislative text (see Firth 2015).

  2. 2.

    Note that the European Convention and Court on Human Rights are distinct from the EU treaty and its institutions, see next section.

  3. 3.

    Vousden charts and criticises this leap in the application of the doctrine of autonomous concepts (Vousden 2010, citing C-61/94 Commission of the European Communities v. Germany [1996] E.C.R. I-3989, [52]); Autonomous concepts are still alive and well in taxation (C-464/12 ATP Pensions v. Skatteministeriat [2014] Pens. L.R. 223, [40]).

  4. 4.

    See Thomas Margoni, The Harmonisation of EU Copyright Law: The Originality Standard, this volume (sixth chapter).

  5. 5.

    Ibid.

  6. 6.

    I am grateful to Prof Mario Franzosi for introducing me to this proposition, many years ago.

  7. 7.

    See Nicolas Suzor et al., Moments of Flux in Intermediary Liability for Copyright Infringement in Australia, this volume (eighth chapter).

  8. 8.

    An autonomous concept, confirmed to apply to intellectual property in Anheuser-Busch v. Portugal (2007) A.N. 73049/01 ECtHR Grand Chamber, [63].

  9. 9.

    The Charter also contains rights not embodied in the ECHR, such as data protection. Plans and mechanisms for the EU to accede to the ECHR have proved controversial (see C-2/13 Opinion of the Court (Full Court) of 18 December 2014, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2454 and, for example, de Werd 2015).

  10. 10.

    Teleological or purposive interpretation and an integrationist stance are said to be characteristic features of the CJEU’s reasoning, although Beck has argued that differences from the reasoning of national higher courts are less than often supposed. He analyses its approaches—literal, systemic and purposive (see Beck 2013).

  11. 11.

    Clear meaning being “the correct application of Community law may be so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt as to the manner in which the question raised is to be resolved” (C-283/81 Srl CILFIT and Lanificio di Gavardo SpA v. Ministry of Health [1982] E.C.R. 3415, [16]).

  12. 12.

    For procedure, see the Court of Justice’s Recommendations to national courts in relation to the initiation of preliminary ruling proceedings [2012] O.J. C 338/1.

  13. 13.

    Martin-Prat notes that referring issues that should already be sufficiently clear can be a problem (Martin-Prat 2014, 32, citing ‘communication to the public’).

  14. 14.

    The Court of Justice refers to ‘ratiodecidendi' [sic] in C-310/97 Commission v. AssiDoman Kraft Products [1999] E.C.R. I-5363, [54].

  15. 15.

    The phrase ‘settled case-law’ is often used (see e.g. C-128/11 UsedSoft GmbH v. Oracle International Corp [2012] 3 C.M.L.R. 44, [39]).

  16. 16.

    Discussed by Thomas Margoni, The Harmonisation of EU Copyright Law: The Originality Standard, this volume (sixth chapter).

  17. 17.

    Trade secrets are not considered intellectual property for the purpose of the enforcement directive (Bronckers and McNelis 2012).

  18. 18.

    Effectively in accordance with WTO TRIPs, preserving Member States’ obligations thereunder (see Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights cuts across the rights, Recitals 4,5,7 and article 3(b)).

  19. 19.

    Identical judicial text can be traced back to non-IP cases, notably C-357/98 R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Yiadom [2000] E.C.R. I-9265, [26]. Many IP cases contain an identical or similar form of words, including C-245/00Stichting ter Exploitatie van Naburige Rechten (SENA) v. Nederlandse Omroep Stichting (NOS) [2003] E.C.R. I-1251, [23]; C-40/01 Ansul BV v. Ajax Brandbeveiliging BV [2003] E.C.R. I-2439, [26]; C-306/05 SGAE v. Rafael Hoteles SL [2006] E.C.R. I-11519; C-510/10 DR and TV2 Danmark v. Nordisk Copyright Bureau [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2012:244.

  20. 20.

    This is partly due to TFEU article 345, which states “The Treaties shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership”.

  21. 21.

    For a map showing the civil law/common law balance of Member States within the EU, see (Wikipedia 2015).

References

  • Aplin, Tanya. 2014. A critical evaluation of the proposed EU Trade Secrets Directive. Intellectual Property Quarterly 4: 257–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Gunnar. 2013. The legal reasoning of the Court of Justice of the EU. Oxford: Harticle Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bengoetxea, Joxerramon. 2015. Text and telos in the European Court of Justice: Four recent takes on the legal reasoning of the ECJ. European Constitutional Law Review 11(1): 184–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, Klaus Peter. 2001. The principles of European contract law and the concept of the “creeping codification” of law. European Review of Private Law 1: 21–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bronckers, Marco, and Natalie McNelis. 2012. Is the EU obliged to improve the protection of trade secrets? An inquiry into TRIPS, the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. European Intellectual Property Review 34(10): 673–688.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charles-Louis de Secondat. 1748. Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu. De L’Esprit des Loix.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Union. 2015. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure – analysis of the final compromise text with a view to agreement 15382/1/15 REV 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimopoulos, Angelos, and Petroula Vantsiouri. 2014. Of TRIPs and traps: The interpretative jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the EU over patent law. European Law Review 39(2): 210–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2013. Proposal for a directive on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2014. The EU legal framework (“acquis”). http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/acquis/index_en.htm. Accessed 22 Nov 2015.

  • European Commission. 2015. EU charter of fundamental rights. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/charter/index_en.htm. Accessed 20 Nov 2015.

  • European Copyright Code. 2012. Introduction. http://www.copyrightcode.eu/. Accessed 22 Nov 2015.

  • European Union. 2015. Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU): Overview. http://europa.eu/about-eu/institutions-bodies/court-justice/index_en.htm. Accessed 22 Nov 2015.

  • European Parliament. 2016. Trade secrets: protecting businesses, safeguarding the right to information. Press release – Industry − 14-04-2016, available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/20160407IPR21787/Trade-secrets-protecting-businesses-safeguarding-the-right-toinformation.

  • European Union Committee. 2011. The workload of the Court of Justice of the European Union. London: House of Lords.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faeh, Andrea. 2015. Judicial activism, the Biotech Directive and its institutional implications: Is the court acting as a legislator or a court when defining the “human embryo”? European Law Review 4: 613–627.

    Google Scholar 

  • Firth, Alison. 2015. Reception of EU trade mark laws in New Zealand. In Importing EU norms? Conceptual framework and empirical findings, eds. Annika Björkdahl, Natalia Chaban, John Leslie, and Annick Masselot. Berlin: Springer, 169–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, John, and Alison Firth. 2014. Is article 13 of the enforcement directive a redundancy notice for the account of profits remedy in the UK? Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law 9(9): 737–741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan Lovells. 2015. Unified Patent Court news. http://www.theunitarypatent.com/unified-patent-news. Accessed 22 Nov 2015.

  • Lenaerts, Koen. 2013. The principle of democracy in the case-law of the European Court of Justice. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 62(2): 271–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Letsas, George. 2004. The truth in autonomous concepts: How to interpret the ECHR. European Journal of International Law 15(2): 279–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maniatis, Spyros, and Dimitris Botis. 2009. Trade marks in Europe: A practical jurisprudence. London, UK: Sweet & Maxwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marfé, Mark, Alexander Reetz, Camille Pecnard, Riccardo Fruscalzo, and Ruud van der Velden. 2015. The power of national courts and the Unified Patent Court to grant injunctions: a comparative study. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 10(3): 180–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin-Prat, Maria. 2014. The future of copyright in Europe. Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts 38: 29–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mistelis, Loukas. 2009. Arbitrability: International and comparative perspectives. In Arbitrability: International and comparative perspectives, eds. Loukas Mistelis, and Stavros Brekoulakis. Netherlands: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauwelyn, Joost, Ramses Wessel, and Jan Wouters. 2014. When structures become shackles: STAGNATION and dynamics in international lawmaking. European Journal of International Law 25(3): 733–763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahmatian, Andreas. 2013. Originality in UK copyright law: The old “skill and labour” doctrine under pressure. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 44(1): 4–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosati, Eleonora. 2014. Just a matter of laugh? Why the CJEU decision in Deckmyn is broader than parody. Common Market Law Review 52: 511–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stamatoudi, Irini, and Paul Torremans. 2014. EU copyright law: A commentary. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Unified Patent Court. 2015. The preparatory committee. http://www.unified-patent-court.org/. Accessed 22 Nov 2015.

  • van Eechoud, Mireille. 2012. Along the road to uniformity: Diverse readings of the Court of Justice judgments on copyright work. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law 3(1): 60–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vousden, Stephen. 2010. Infopaq and the Europeanisation of copyright law. World Intellectual Property Organisation Journal 1(2): 197–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vousden, Stephen. 2011. Protecting GUIs in EU law: Bezpecnostní Softwarová Asociace. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 6(10): 728–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vousden, Stephen. 2012. Airfield, intermediaries and the rescue of EU copyright law. Intellectual Property Quarterly 4: 311–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Werd, Marc. 2015. Renegotiating EU accession to the ECHR: New perspectives and better chances. https://acelg.blogactiv.eu/2015/07/15/renegotiating-eu-accession-to-the-echr-new-perspectives-and-better-chances/. Accessed 20 Nov 2015.

  • Wessel, Ramses, and Steven Blockmans. 2013. Between autonomy and dependence: The EU legal order under the influence of international organisations. In Between autonomy and dependence: The EU legal order under the influence of international organisations, eds. Ramses Wessel, and Steven Blockmans. The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press/Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wikipedia. 2015. Common law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law. Accessed 22 Nov 2015.

  • WTO. 2015. The European Union and the WTO. https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/countries_e/european_communities_e.htm. Accessed 20 Nov 2015.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Surrey, Guildford, UK

    Alison Firth

  2. Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

    Alison Firth

  3. Queen Mary University of London, London, UK

    Alison Firth

Authors
  1. Alison Firth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alison Firth .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, University of New England, Armidale, Australia

    Mark Perry

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Firth, A. (2016). Code, Autonomous Concepts and Procedure: Stepping Stones for European Law?. In: Perry, M. (eds) Global Governance of Intellectual Property in the 21st Century. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31177-7_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31177-7_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-31176-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-31177-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation