Abstract
Although scholars and stakeholders have long analyzed and tried to limit the clashes between copyright and fundamental rights caused by the recent developments of EU copyright law, none of their proposed solutions has been proven successful. This chapter is based on the assumption that the cause of this impasse lies in the systematic chaos generated by the incompatibility of EU and national copyright models.
Since its onset, EU copyright law has substantially departed from Member States’ common traditions, while Article 17.2 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights (ECFR) completed the paradigm shift by formalizing the definition of copyright in proprietary terms. Due to the vagueness of CJEU’s “fair balance” test and the different approaches of the ECFR and national constitutions to the functions, limits, and hierarchical rank of property rights, this classification has broadened the divide between EU and national case laws and caused several interpretive short circuits before national courts.
The chapter argues that the only way out from the stalemate is a systematic reordering of this otherwise fragmented multilevel framework. To this end, it starts with a description of the main symptoms of the EU paradigm shift (§ 2) and compares the effects of copyright propertization before the CJEU and in selected Member States (§ 3). Then it proposes an integrated interpretation of CJEU’s precedents in light of the common constitutional traditions (§ 4) and concludes by providing examples of how the new interpretative framework may help to restore the lost balance on more solid and stable systematic bases (§ 5).
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
1 The Need to Go Back to the System
In the last two decades, the headlong rush of copyright law towards the achievement of high levels of protection has neglected, if not created, the risk of conflict between authors’ prerogatives and users’ fundamental rights. To restore the balance that once characterized the discipline, scholars and stakeholders have advocated for legal reforms,Footnote 1 proposed to take advantage of the flexibility of the current legislative framework,Footnote 2 or supported the creation of model private agreements as tools to leverage, rather than oppose, natural market tendencies.Footnote 3 So far, none of these solutions have been successfully worked out. There is an inner and somewhat overlooked reason why all the approaches thus suggested are, and most probably will be, destined to fail. In fact, the ultimate cause of the current impasse lies in the systematic chaos generated by the interplay between EU and national legal sources. EU copyright law has substantially departed from Member States’ common core, abandoned the paths traced by the civil and common law traditions, and embraced rationales that are far removed from the inspirations of both models.Footnote 4 This silent revolution has generated several interpretative short circuits in the practice of national courts, such as the disapplication of exceptions in light of their potential negative impact on the commercial exploitation of the work.Footnote 5 The already critical imbalance between exclusive rights and free uses, which are traditionally provided to allow the enjoyment of users’ fundamental rights vis-à-vis copyright enforcement, has thus significantly worsened. At the same time, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has not been able to draw up any clear criteria to be used by national courts when pursuing the “fair balance” mentioned in several EU Directives, given the much greater emphasis placed on broadening the scope of the acquis communautaire than on providing rules of thumb to systematize the subject.Footnote 6 It is not surprising that, when facing such a chaos, the fragmented and atomistic modus operandi of copyright scholarship and case law is not of any help in untying the interpretative knots. To complete the picture, Article 17 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights (ECFR), dedicated to property rights, has formalized the qualification of copyright in proprietary terms by stating, rather cryptically, in its second paragraph that “intellectual property shall be protected.”Footnote 7 The definition stands in clear contrast with the historical aversion of the civil law tradition towards an extension of property rights to cover intangible goods and with the absence of intellectual property from most of the Member States’ constitutions,Footnote 8 and it is thus destined to create much misunderstanding in its national implementation. But the problems arising from the clash between the EU and Member States’ sources do not end here. The ECFR does not define any hierarchy among rights and liberties protected, while national constitutions have traditionally ranked fundamental rights, either fully or at least up to a certain extent, according to specific value-laden options.Footnote 9 For the common constitutional traditions of Member States, property is a right internally limited by its functionalization to social goals, while for the ECFR it is a fundamental liberty that can be subject to limitation dictated by public interests.Footnote 10 In those national jurisdictions where constitutional property rules apply also to intellectual property, the propertization of copyright has been used to uphold the legislative limitation of author’s rights in light of their social function.Footnote 11 On the contrary, the effects of Article 17 on CJEU’s case law have been either limited or dangerously contradictory, while the “fair balance” looks at copyright and fundamental rights as equally ranked rights.Footnote 12
With such a chaotic and scattered background, every possible attempt to solve the conflict between copyright and fundamental rights is condemned to produce ephemeral or no results and to be frustrated by further interpretative short circuits. In fact, no balance can be coherently pursued and no legal certainty can be achieved until the elements composing this multilevel framework are properly conceptualized and understood and their interactions resystematized. In this context, as much as the propertization of EU copyright law constitutes the final threat posed by the systematic chaos, it may equally play a fundamental role in building the framework necessary to emerge from the impasse.
Starting with the main symptoms of the paradigm shift of EU copyright in the words of legislator and courts (§ 2), this article attempts to trace a possible path for this new systematic reconstruction. A brief diachronic comparison of the effects of propertization in the EU and selected Member States (§ 3) provides the elements necessary to connect the dots and merge the lessons coming from the common constitutional traditions of Member States with the indications formulated by the CJEU (§ 4). The paper concludes with some practical examples of how the new framework may help in reinterpreting EU copyright law in order to restore the lost balance on solid and stable systematic bases (§ 5).
2 The “Propertization” of EU Copyright Law
The use of property rhetoric to support the quest for expansion of the scope and term of protection of copyright is not a new phenomenon. In eighteenth century England, the Stationers’ Company, a corporation enjoying full control over printing activities, defines copyright as “undoubted property” to lobby for reclaiming the privileges lost due to the nonrenewal of the Printing Act.Footnote 13 After the enactment of the Statute of Anne, which reduces the duration of printing monopolies, a comparable argument is used to advocate for the existence of an absolute and perpetual common law copyright, independent of the rights created by law.Footnote 14 In the same span of years, publishers from Paris fight to strengthen their position by claiming the existence of a propriété literaire, defined as perpetual natural right,Footnote 15 while a few decades later, after the Revolution, authors’ rights are statutorily qualified in terms of property rights, which represent the highest expression of the new freedom acquired with the defeat of the Ancient Regime.Footnote 16 Several American colonies use analogous definitions until the advent of the federal Constitution and the first federal Copyright Act, which opt for a neutral, utilitarian approach.Footnote 17 Here also, exactly as it happened in England after the Statute of Anne, local publishers push for an expansion of the scope and term of protection by arguing for the existence of a common law copyright, clearly worded in proprietary terms.Footnote 18
Although the historical process of formation of copyright and droit d’auteur shows in both cases the presence of strong property rhetoric, the paths followed by the two models diverge at a very early stage. The most direct explanation of the phenomenon—less political and more technical—lies in the opposite semantic implications of the word “property” in civil and common legal systems.Footnote 19 In the Anglo-Saxon tradition, the lexeme is a synonym of ownership or asset and does not represent an autonomous, characterizing legal category. Hence, the qualification of a right in terms of “property” does not carry systematic consequences, nor does it have an impact on its regulation.Footnote 20 The characteristics of intellectual property rights descend, in fact, only from their monopolistic nature and the utilitarian rationales underlying their protection. On the contrary, the continental paradigm is heavily influenced by the Pandectist tradition, which limits the subject matter of property to tangible goods, and links the definition of a right in proprietary terms to the application of specific rules concerning the creation, circulation, and protection of the entitlement.Footnote 21 According to these dogmas, intellectual property is not a form of property, nor can it ever be. France constitutes an exception, where property is a concept characterized by weak classificatory power.Footnote 22 Its scarce cogency explains why the personalist nuance of the propriété literaire could predominate and distance author’s rights from the property model delineated by the Code Napoleon and why the consequences of such a development share very little with the effects of the recent copyright propertization.Footnote 23
French literary property mirrors the sacred link between author and work, where the work represents the materialization of author’s personality.Footnote 24 This aspect is of such key importance to the development of the model as to have influenced the way that exclusive rights and exceptions are conceptualized. Personality rights, unlike monopolies, are not supposed to be tightly controlled in their exercise, while their superior hierarchical status limits the number of cases where flexible clauses are needed to balance them with other conflicting rights. Consequently, exclusive author’s rights are shaped in broad and flexible terms, while exceptions and limitations are exhaustively determined by law.Footnote 25 Dissimilarly, the Anglo-Saxon model has a strong utilitarian inspiration, where the incentive offered to authors is justified by the social need to create a marketplace for ideas and to stimulate the creation and diffusion of knowledge. Since copyright is a monopoly granted for public goals and not an idiosyncratic natural right, exclusive rights are listed in a close and exhaustive manner, while exceptions are worded as flexible clauses, so as to allow courts the possibility to implement the law according to its underlying goals.Footnote 26
EU copyright law departs from both models. Its pronounced market rationales are rooted in the original lack of competence of the Community in the field, and the consequent need to ground its intervention on the necessity to remove obstacles to the internal market.Footnote 27 Born as a sterile creature, EU copyright is unable to embed the philosophical inspirations that have characterized the continental and Anglo-Saxon traditions since their onset.
The shift is already visible even in the earliest consultative documents. The goals of harmonization, according to the first Green Papers and subsequent follow-ups, are to strengthen the internal market and to stimulate competitiveness and investments.Footnote 28 Meanwhile, the necessity to balance market needs with the promotion of access and participation to cultural life is confined to mere declamatory statements or introduced in the context of goals of production and commercialization of cultural goods and services.Footnote 29 Similar words can be found in the first Directives, which repeatedly mention the need to protect investments,Footnote 30 to stimulate the industrial development,Footnote 31 and to remove obstacles to the internal market.Footnote 32 Directive 2001/29/EC (InfoSoc) completes the departure from the continental model with two further steps: firstly, the explicit introduction of a utilitarian rationale in its recitalsFootnote 33 and, secondly, for the first time, the definition of copyright in proprietary terms inspired not by jusnaturalism but by its utilitarian function of promoting and protecting creativity.Footnote 34 No correspondent change, however, can be witnessed in the approach to limitations and exceptions. On the contrary, Recital 32 specifies that the list provided by Article 5 should be deemed exhaustive, following the good old continental paradigm. At the same time, Recital 31 rejects the adoption of a pure common law utilitarian rationale and negates the possibility to introduce flexible balancing clauses, by stating that national legislators shall intervene on exceptions only if a lack of harmonization may have an impact on the internal market. Similar arguments are advanced in the Directives enacted after 2001.Footnote 35
The paradigm shift is inspired by the aim of granting to copyright a “high level of protection,”Footnote 36 which the EU legislator seems to consider desirable in any case and representing an end in itself. This assumption has led several scholars to affirm the adoption of a new “property logic,” according to which author’s rights are so idiosyncratic that they need not to be justified in light of any further aim.Footnote 37 The use of “logic,” instead of “dogmatic definition,” is understandably grounded on the almost complete absence of an explicit proprietary qualification of copyright in EU legislative and judicial texts, at least until the advent of the Charter of Nice and the ECFR.
Despite being new, Article 17 of the ECFR does not represent a revolutionary norm. The ECtHR, following the EU Commission, already had the opportunity to apply to intellectual property Article 1 of the first Additional Protocol to the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), although without providing any significant systematic explanations.Footnote 38 Yet the dry language of the text and the many divergent official translations have raised substantial interpretative questions. The English version of the ECFR states that intellectual property “shall be protected,” suggesting an interpretation of Article 17.2 as a constitutional declamation of a maximalist approach to copyright protection. On the contrary, the plain use of the verb “to be” in, e.g., German, Italian, and French (est, wird, è) seems to indicate the mere reception of the existing judicial practice, justified by the inclusion of intellectual property under the competences of the Union after the Treaty of Lisbon. The permanence of a balance between copyright and fundamental rights in EU law may support the second, less alarming interpretation.Footnote 39 This does not mean, however, that Article 17 represents a merely descriptive provision without substantial effects. To see this, suffice it to mention the impact of its introduction on CJEU’s case law.
In an increasing number of decisions, the Court refers to Article 17 to define copyright as a property—and thus fundamental right—and to operate a “fair balance” between equally ranked rights. Since the ECFR and the ECHR do not set any internal hierarchy, while the majority of national constitutions downgrade the hierarchical rank of property in light of its social function, this trend has naturally magnified the divide between EU and State sources. In addition, although the CJEU has already specified that Article 17.2 does not ensure absolute and unlimited protection to copyright, the vagueness of the balancing criteria has already led the Court to tautologically assert the existence of the balance on the mere ground that the law claims to have taken into account all the interests at stake.Footnote 40 At the same time, the weak prescriptive nature of the “fair balance” makes national courts unable to understand and apply the test, marginalizing their role in the process. The consequent judicial inertia leaves unsolved the potential conflict between EU and national constitutional provisions and, with this, the question of the impact of Article 17 ECFR on the discretion left to Member States in adapting EU copyright law to the principles and values inspiring their legal systems.
The divide separating EU and Member States’ copyright models becomes more evident still when juxtaposing the effects of copyright propertization in recent CJEU’s decisions with those of the equation of copyright and constitutional property in past national experiences.
3 The Different Effects of Propertization: EU vs. Member States
With a few limited exceptions, the civil law tradition excludes the possibility of extending the subject matter of property to cover intangible goods and, thus, intellectual property.Footnote 41 At the same time, due to the high degree of specificity and technicality of the subject, courts have generally found it impractical to use property rules to fill gaps in its regulation, thus making its dogmatic categorization in proprietary terms practically useless. Dissimilarly, scholars and a number of national constitutional courts have opened up the category of constitutional property to include an ample range of economic rights, interests, and expectations, including also intellectual property.Footnote 42
Since 1971, the German Bundesverfassungsgericht has applied Article 14 GG to uphold the legitimacy of legislative interventions limiting authors’ exclusive rights when required by public interest.Footnote 43 In the most paradigmatic case, Schoolbook,Footnote 44 the Court rejected plaintiffs’ claim of expropriation, grounded on a provision that allowed the reprint of excerpts from literary, music, and artistic works in anthologies destined to didactic, educational, or religious purposes,Footnote 45 stating that the author’s freedom to dispose of his economic rights is not absolute, due to the “special nature and character of this (…) right.”Footnote 46 On the contrary, “in defining the content of copyright according to Article 14 GG, [the legislator] should provide rules adequate to assure an exploitation of the work which is coherent with the nature and social relevance of copyright.”Footnote 47 These rules usually take the form of exceptions and limitations and guarantee an adequate balance of copyright with private interests of higher hierarchical rank such as, in this case, the interest for young generations to have access to the most relevant literary and artistic works.Footnote 48 A similar reference to the social function of property in order to justify the otherwise unauthorized use of a protected work appears in the Broadcast Lending case,Footnote 49 where the Bundesverfassungsgericht affirms the legitimacy of a rule that allows the nonprofit reproduction of works for schools that have already acquired a license for single uses. Analogously, the Church Music case legitimates the unauthorized performance of music pieces in nonprofit events in light of the “social character of intellectual property,” although the Court requires the attribution of fair compensation in order to respect the principle of equitable balance among opposite interests.Footnote 50 In the following decades, several other decisions affirmed the validity of this interpretation, using it also to support the interpretative expansion of the boundaries of existing exceptions, like in the recent and famous Germania 3 case.Footnote 51
German case law is the clearest and most detailed example of the impact of social function on the constitutional propertization of copyright. Other countries, such as France, show similar interpretative trends in several doctrinal contributions, although their courts are relatively silent on the issue.Footnote 52 At the opposite side of the spectrum, countries like Italy witness the radical exclusion of the application of constitutional property guarantees on intellectual property rules, in line with the doctrinal aversion against the dogmatic definition of patents, trademarks, and copyright in proprietary terms.Footnote 53 As early as in 1978, the Italian Constitutional Court declared the unconstitutionality of the nonpatentability of pharmaceutical products but specified that the reference to constitutional property should be rejected because “the particular characteristics of intangible goods (…) suggests the inopportunity to ascribe them to the property model described by Article 42.1 Cost.”Footnote 54 More than a quarter of century later, the Court dismissed on procedural grounds a claim of unconstitutionality of the reduction of the term of protection granted to pharmaceutical patents, thus avoiding the decision of whether or not the act amounted to an illegitimate expropriation of property rights.Footnote 55 Except for a decision on trademarks,Footnote 56 where Article 42.2 Cost. was applied to state that the ownership and enjoyment of intangible goods should be regulated in light of their social functions, and one on copyright,Footnote 57 all the other precedents ascribe intellectual property rights to freedom of economic activity and protection of competition.Footnote 58
However, also in those countries where courts and scholars accept the qualification of authors’ exclusive rights in terms of constitutional property when the issue at stake concerns the legitimacy of State interventions on copyright law, such a reconstruction is seldom used in cases of conflicts between copyright and fundamental rights in private relationships. Once again, the reason for the divergence may be identified in the traditional judicial deference towards statutory law and the rigidity of exceptions, as shown by the conspicuous number of precedents on the clash between copyright and freedom of expression.Footnote 59 In any case, regardless of whether copyright propertization appears only in rulings addressing the constitutionality of copyright statutes, the assumption that its final consequence is the social functionalization and internal limitation of authors’ rights, rather than their progressive expansion, remains perfectly valid.
The evolution of CJEU’s case law leads, instead, to substantially different results.
In Laserdisken,Footnote 60 the Court applied for the first time Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol of the ECHR to argue that the protection of copyright as property right represents a case of justified limitation of the freedom to impart and receive information allowed by Article 10 ECHR, which was deemed to be violated by the exclusion of international exhaustion by the InfoSoc Directive. However, no explanation is provided as to the criteria applied for the balance, although the proportionality of the intervention is taken for granted in light of the need to protect copyright.
A completely different approach is adopted in Promusicae,Footnote 61 in an area—the interplay between copyright enforcement and privacy rights—where the acquis communitaire was at that time still underdeveloped. Requested to decide whether EU law obliges Member States to introduce an obligation for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to communicate users’ personal data in the context of civil proceedings, the Court finds that the “fair balance” and other balancing criteria mentioned in the legislative texts, interpreted in light of Articles 17 and 57 of the Charter of Nice, call for a negative answer. These general rules “leave to Member States the necessary discretion to define transposition measures which may be adapted to the various situations possible,”Footnote 62 in order for them to fulfill their obligation to “take care to rely on an interpretation of the directives which allows a fair balance to be struck between the various fundamental rights protected by the Community legal order.”Footnote 63 Moreover, “when implementing the measures transposing those directives, the authorities and courts of the Member States must (…) also make sure that they do not rely on an interpretation of them which would be in conflict with those fundamental rights or with the other general principles of Community law, such as the principle of proportionality.”Footnote 64 In this case, the conflict would arise if the Court had opted for a broader interpretation of the communication duties to be imposed on ISPs.
Promusicae may have been read as an imperative call for national courts to apply constitutional clauses horizontally when required to protect fundamental rights vis-à-vis copyright enforcement. Instead, the decision ended up representing only the starting point of a path where the concept of “fair balance” has been—maybe voluntarily—left empty, making the balancing criteria useless at a national level but at the same time allowing the CJEU to use them flexibly, according to its contingent policy goals.Footnote 65
This attitude appears crystal clear when comparing Promusicae with three similar cases: on one side, Scarlet Extended Footnote 66 and Netlog Footnote 67 (2011), concerning the possibility of imposing on ISPs the duty to implement general monitoring systems to check and block the exchange of infringing materials, and, on the other side, Bonnier Audio Footnote 68 (2012), which looks at the compatibility with the right to privacy of a new Swedish law granting right holders, also in the context of civil proceedings, the right to obtain users’ personal data from ISPs in order to identify and prosecute infringers.
Both in Scarlet Extended and in Netlog, the CJEU specifies that although Article 17.2 ECFR protects intellectual property rights, “there is […] nothing whatsoever in the wording of that provision or in the Court’s case-law to suggest that that right is inviolable and must for that reason be absolutely protected.”Footnote 69 Recalling Promusicae, the Court reaffirms that “national authorities and courts must strike a fair balance between the protection of copyright and the protection of the fundamental rights of individuals who are affected by such measures.”Footnote 70 The need to protect copyright does not justify the imposition of a general monitoring obligation that would impair, on one side, ISPs’ freedom of economic initiative due to its costs and, on the other side, users’ right to impart and receive information due to its inability to distinguish between legal and illegal contents.Footnote 71 A few months later, Bonnier Audio reaches opposite results. According to Promusicae, an interpretation of EU copyright law in line with fundamental rights protection excludes the existence of an obligation for Member States to implement communication duties vis-à-vis ISPs. States, however, are free to provide otherwise, and thus Sweden is deemed to have correctly exercised its discretion when letting copyright enforcement prevail over users’ privacy in the context of civil proceedings.Footnote 72
Nothing in the text of the decisions helps to provide an understanding of why and how the same “fair balance” between privacy and copyright could produce such different outputs in so short a time frame. The vagueness of the balancing criteria seems to reduce CJEU’s intervention to mere cosmetic statements, which hardly set a clear direction to resolve conflicts between copyright and fundamental rights.Footnote 73 Such blurriness would not hurt if the Court played a neutral role in the creation and development of EU copyright law. But this has long not been the case.
As a matter of fact, the CJEU has repeatedly tried to broaden the scope of EU harmonization and to introduce new limits to State discretion. An example of this attitude can be found in the recent Eva-Maria Painer case,Footnote 74 where the Court admits that the InfoSoc Directive leaves Member States free to adapt the public security exception to their own needs,Footnote 75 but at the same time it circumscribes the scope of the exception with several well-known, but again vague, criteria. Principles and rules, such as proportionality and the three-step test, are listed without providing any further explanation on their specific application in the case at hand.Footnote 76 Parallel to this, the goals of the Directive are reduced to the mere assurance of a high level of copyright protection,Footnote 77 while the “fair balance” is analyzed only briefly.Footnote 78 No reference whatsoever is made to Article 17 ECFR and its possible implications for the balancing exercise.Footnote 79
One might be tempted to argue that the impact of the ECFR on the CJEU has been only slightly more than nonexistent. However, precedents such as Luksan Footnote 80 depict a completely different scenario.
The casus belli here is the decision of the Austrian legislator to grant to producers, rather than to directors, the exploitation rights over cinematographic works. The Court not only finds Austrian law incompatible with the European frameworkFootnote 81 but also uses Article 17.1 ECFR to define the legislative act as a deprivation of property rights legitimately acquired under EU law.Footnote 82 Although a proper argumentation in support of the statement is missing, the link between Article 17.1 and 2 is clearly spelled outFootnote 83 and creates for the first time a connection between copyright and the ECtHR’s case law on property rights. The same property logic emerges in the judicial construction of the mandatory nature of the right to receive a fair compensation in case of private copy exception, which goes beyond what is provided by the InfoSoc Directive, and stands in clear contrast with the extreme favor for private ordering characterizing the field of exceptions and limitations.
The Strasbourg Court’s fragmented reading of Article 1 of the First Protocol of the ECHR, coupled with the high technicality of copyright law, makes it hard to predict the consequence of this revirement. However, whatever the evolution of CJEU’s case law might be, the interpretation adopted in Luksan represents a sort of final and last call to take copyright propertization seriously. The need to revise the approach to the problem becomes particularly pressing when faced with the questionable results already caused by the encounter of the new EU paradigm shift with the relatively rigid background of Member States’ laws and judicial practices. Vivid examples of these distortions are the use of the three-step test as an additional filter to the application of exceptions,Footnote 84 often leading to their practical disapplication, or the rigid reluctance to apply constitutional clauses horizontally and to extend exceptions by analogy when required to satisfy similar balancing needs.Footnote 85
Before the European harmonization, the continental model of authors’ rights and its traditional deference towards statutory law have hindered the ability of judges to play an active role in balancing copyright with other conflicting interests.Footnote 86 Still, the application of constitutional property clauses to copyright has represented an occasion to emphasize the social function of author’s rights and the need to pursue an effective balance. Today, the interaction of national path dependence with the vagueness of the concept of “fair balance” and the controversial indications offered by EU Directives have reinforced the passive attitude of the judiciary and made it more inflexible than ever before.Footnote 87 At the same time, the uncertainties surrounding the relation of the new EU constitutional property model with Member States’ common constitutional traditions have relegated the social function doctrine to the corner.Footnote 88 As a result, the clause has never been used in the context of national implementations of EU copyright law, nor has the CJEU ever referred to it when applying Article 17 to cases related to copyright balance.
The inconsistencies generated by the unclear interplay between multilevel sources make it impossible to regulate the conflicts between copyright and fundamental rights in a manner compatible with the backgrounds characterizing all the systems involved. Short circuits and interpretative impasses like those affecting EU copyright law can be metaphorically compared to the consequences of not completely understood, and thus mishandled, chemical reactions. In such cases, the most rational way out is to separate and analyze the single components of the process and then to reconnect them in a new, internally coherent interpretative framework.
4 A Proposal to Connect the Dots
With the introduction of the concept of social function, several modern Constitutions have significantly intervened on the hierarchical rank of property, engendering a qualitative mutation in the nature of its limitations, which have become an integral part of the structure of the right.Footnote 89 The effects of the innovation have been the same regardless of whether national Constitutions downgraded property to a mere economic right, as in the case of Italy,Footnote 90 or defined it in terms of fundamental right, as in the case of Germany, where the link between property and the goals of the new Sozialstaat is summarized by the powerful statement Eigentum verpflichtet (property obliges).Footnote 91 The concept of social function also emerges in judicial decisions in countries like France, where the Constitution is silent.Footnote 92 Decades of precedents have contributed to the development of a complex doctrine, which emphasizes, above all, the variable implications of the clause according to the social relevance of the good(s) owned, or the connection between property and the duty of civil solidarity.Footnote 93 As a result, proprietors’ idiosyncratic interests are smeared, while property moves away from the category of inviolable rights and the top of the pyramid of rights protected.Footnote 94
Although social function represents one of the most characterizing traits of continental property, the clause does not appear in any of the EU texts, where it is generally substituted by the notion of general/public interest.Footnote 95 “General interest” is also the lexeme used in Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol of the ECHR, the content of which is only minimally specified by the ECtHR, due to the Court’s high deference towards national socioeconomic and distributive policies.Footnote 96 Only those acts that “take the legislature’s decision outside the margin of appreciation”Footnote 97 are considered inappropriate and disproportionate, while the admissibility of the limitation is assessed on the ground of the existence of a legitimate goal and of the reasonableness and proportionality of the balance between intervention and goals pursued. The evaluation of the Court is centered either on the social function of property, i.e. on the reasons underlying the limitation, or, more often, on the economic loss suffered by the right holder.Footnote 98 Due to this tendency, the property depicted by the ECtHR is predominantly a bundle of economic utilitiesFootnote 99; the missing specification of the interplay between powers, limits, and social obligations makes Article 1 of the First Protocol a mere guarantee against State interferences, which, as a consequence, says little or nothing about the hierarchical rank of property and its balance with other conflicting rights.
CJEU’s decisions, although limited in number, offer more detailed arguments. The first definition of property as fundamental right subject to limitations in light of public interest can be found in Hauer v. Land Rheinland-Pfalz.Footnote 100 The case represents also the first connection of the Luxembourg Court’s case law with the ECtHR’s precedents, with the difference that the CJEU explicitly refers to social function as the lowest common denominator of Member States’ common constitutional traditions and as the founding element of any legislative interventions on property rights.Footnote 101 Five years before, in Nold,Footnote 102 the Court was even clearer in stating that “if rights of ownership are protected by the constitutional laws of all the Member States […] the rights thereby guaranteed, far from constituting unfettered prerogatives, must be viewed in the light of the social function of the property and activities protected thereunder.”Footnote 103 Nold recognizes that social function belongs to the common core of Member States’ property law and draws internal limits to the structure of the right, allowing EU interventions on national property rights when required by public interest.Footnote 104 On the basis of this principle, which was further developed in Van der Bergh Foods Ltd. v. Commission,Footnote 105 the CJEU has repeatedly found EU interference on national laws justified by the need to pursue socially relevant goals such as the protection of fundamental rightsFootnote 106 and, to a much greater extent, the correct functioning of the internal market.Footnote 107 The more frequent use of market arguments may be causally connected with the original competences of the Union and the late appearance of fundamental rights in the Court’s case law.
Several scholars have argued that the advent of the ECFR and its direct reference to the ECHR represent two decisive steps towards the creation of a new EU constitutional property model, which would diverge drastically from the personalist-solidarist inspiration of many national constitutions.Footnote 108 The absence of an internal hierarchy among fundamental rights, the dilution of social function in the vague concept of general (or public) interest, the qualification of property in terms of fundamental liberty, and the focus on guarantees and minimum economic content of the right might indeed support this fear. Still, the fact that the ECFR eschews a hierarchy and defines property as a fundamental liberty does not necessarily imply the abandonment of the social function clause, as shown by the German Constitution.Footnote 109 Similarly, the concept of social function is not completely unknown to European courts, although it has never been properly articulated in their arguments. Last, but not least, Article 6 of the Lisbon Treaty defines common constitutional traditions as general principles of EU law, thus allowing them to play a relevant role in aligning the development of EU constitutional property with the milestones reached by decades of national judicial contributions.Footnote 110
Past national experiences illustrate well how reading copyright propertization through the lens of social function may help in attributing to authors’ exclusive rights an indicative hierarchical rank and orienting their balance with conflicting public and private interests. Today, Article 17 ECFR clearly requests national legal systems to overcome the reluctance against this dogmatic categorization and broaden the reach of their constitutional property clauses to cover also intellectual property. At the same time, the indications coming from the EU may also contribute to the “renaissance” of social function. The interpretation of the clause as rule directed only at legislators has historically slowed down, if not blocked, its horizontal application, thus making it impossible for property to share with contracts and torts the same path of “constitutionalization.”Footnote 111 The situation may—and most probably should—now change in light of the CJEU’s recommendations. In Promusicae, as well as in its general case law on fundamental rights protection, the Court has clearly stated that not only legislators but also courts are in charge of implementing EU law in a manner that is not conflicting with fundamental rights or other general principles of Community law, such as the principle of proportionality.Footnote 112 This implies also the need for a horizontal application of constitutional clauses if required to guarantee the respect of fundamental rights in the context of private relations, and there is no reason to believe that property clauses would constitute an exception. If this were the case, the social function of constitutional property could play a fundamental role in guiding courts when they are requested to rule on conflicts between copyright and fundamental rights. Moreover, in light of Article 6 of the Treaty of Lisbon, the clause may help to attribute an indicative hierarchical status to author’s exclusive rights vis-à-vis conflicting right and thus to fill up, on stronger dogmatic bases, the empty spot left by the CJEU in the definition of the meaning of “fair balance,” with undoubtedly positive effects for legal certainty and the coherent development of EU harmonization.
The effects of this new systematic reconstruction are potentially numerous and range from a new interpretation of exceptions, limitations, and the three-step test to the correction of the most evident distortions of digital copyright contracts. The development of more sophisticated national judicial approaches may not only avoid interpretative short circuits at a State level but also contribute, with a bottom-up approach, to resolving the inconsistencies affecting CJEU’s case law.
5 Potential Effects of the New Systematic Reconstruction
One of the most important roles that social function can perform is to assist judges in developing adequate criteria to follow Football Association Premier League,Footnote 113 which states that the restrictive interpretation of exceptions should in no way hamper their effectiveness and the fulfillment of their purposes.Footnote 114 Once the exception is read as a limit imposed on copyright in light of its functionalization to social goalsFootnote 115 and once its legal function is clearly spelled out, Football Association may support, on a more solid and systematic basis, the extension by analogy of the rule to cases not explicitly provided by law but still sharing the purpose of protecting the same fundamental right. Such an approach would contribute to the creation of even clearer points of reference for the application of the “fair balance” and proportionality test, thus helping to achieve higher legal certainty in a field where inconsistencies are a matter of routine.
It has already been noted that the horizontal application of constitutional clauses on exceptions might be precluded by Article 5.5 InfoSoc and its three-step test, which is deemed to exclude the judicial creation or expansion of free unauthorized uses.Footnote 116 The test, in fact, subordinates the implementation of exceptions to specific cases that do not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder. The language of the Directive, which uses the vague phrase “shall be applied,” does not shed light on the subjective scope of the provision.Footnote 117 This uncertainty is mirrored in the bipolar approach of Member States, which either interpret Article 5.5 as a rule directed at legislators, and avoid implementing it in their laws, or read it as a rule addressed to judges, thus embedding it in their copyright statutes.Footnote 118 Irrespective of the option chosen, a number of national courts have used the three-step test to exclude the application of legally granted exceptions on the basis of their negative impact on the commercial exploitation of the work.Footnote 119 Although CJEU’s decisions such as Infopaq II Footnote 120 may suggest an interpretation of Article 5.5 as a mere criterion to scrutinize the legitimacy of the legislative introduction of new limitations, the Court has not taken a definite position on the issue yet, leaving the door open to contrary interpretations.
To read the three-step test as an additional ex post filter undoubtedly frustrates the goal of legal certainty that the continental model has always pursued by means of closed and exhaustive lists of exceptions.Footnote 121 At the same time, their judicial disapplication can hardly be reconciled with those of CJEU’s precedents that assume that the fair balance between copyright and fundamental rights has been realized by the broad and flexible catalog of free uses provided by Article 5 InfoSoc and its national implementations.Footnote 122 Although Member States are free to implement the provision according to their national needs, the CJEU still requires an implementation of EU law that is coherent with the goal of protecting fundamental rights (Promusicae et seq.) and an interpretation of exceptions that does not hinder the practical fulfillment of their function (Premier League). These precedents should logically prevent mere market arguments from supporting the disapplication of exceptions when such rules are used within the borders of their legitimate function, and their implementation is needed to guarantee the enjoyment of users’ fundamental rights.
The social function of property may also inspire a more balanced interpretation of the first and third prongs of the three-step test. If the main social function of exceptions is to act as a safeguard to fundamental rights vis-à-vis copyright enforcement, the term “special cases” should be read by legislators as including every free use necessary to guarantee their protection. Similarly, the legitimacy of authors’ interests should be evaluated on the basis of their proprietary nature and thus by a concept of property protected in light and within the limits of its social function.Footnote 123 This suggests the acceptability of those exceptions that regulate the borders of exclusive rights in accordance with their purposes and that can be used to prevent their de facto abuse. If the three-step test is meant to be directed also at judges, then the social function doctrine indicates again the necessity for courts to read its first and third prongs in view of the goal of fair balance and horizontal protection of fundamental rights. This implies not only the impossibility of basing on mere economic grounds the disapplication of exceptions required to safeguard the enjoyment of a fundamental right but also the need to extend them by analogy to specific similar cases, even if not contemplated by law, when the purpose of protecting the same fundamental right is at stake.
The new systematic approach to copyright propertization may also contribute to solving the distortions caused by the compression or nullification of users’ prerogatives in EULA standardized clauses. With the exception of Directive 2011/83/EC, which introduces information duties on TMPs,Footnote 124 the only EU text addressing the issue of copyright contracts is the InfoSoc Directive, which leaves contractual parties free to determine the applicability of exceptions “to ensure fair compensation for the rightholders insofar as permitted by national law.”Footnote 125 The remission of the copyright balance to contractual determination, which signs a clear departure from the model of imperative exceptions adopted by Directive 96/6/EC on database protectionFootnote 126 and Directive 2009/24/EC on software protection,Footnote 127 is not destined to change soon, notwithstanding the intense round of consultations recently launched by the Commission on the matter.Footnote 128 Here, where the conflict between copyright and fundamental rights arises in the context of a private agreement, the interpretative nodes to be solved are whether and to what extent parties can agree on the restriction of legitimate uses and whether or not the negative effects of such a restriction on users’ fundamental rights may impact on the validity of the contract, clause excluding the applicability of the exception(s). While the answer is straightforward for that minority of legal systems that declares exceptions mandatory,Footnote 129 the issue becomes more problematic when the legislator is silent on the issue.
National courts and scholars agree on the fact that exceptions do not confer subjective rights and thus deny their imperative nature.Footnote 130 Dogmatically speaking, the theory is hard to confute. No subjective right exists if, as in the case of exceptions, the biunivocal link between subject and object is missing. While the exclusive right on a specific work arises at the moment of its creation, and immediately generates the necessary connection between holder and object of the right, exceptions are generically attributed to an indefinite potential user and on any indefinite potential works. As a consequence, no corresponding obligation arises for the author until the interest materializes in a specific user and in a specific context.
The dogmatic nature of exceptions is closer, instead, to the category of “objective rights,” elaborated in Germany at the beginning of the twentieth century on the basis of the Reflexwirkung theory and subsequently developed in different forms throughout Europe.Footnote 131 An objective right is the reflex of the introduction of legal provisions that mainly pursue public goals, while the right holder is the subject who becomes, in a specific time and circumstance, the target of a protection justified by the safeguard or fostering of the public interest. The term “objective right” is used in clear contrast with the concept of subjective right, which is recognized and protected as a result of the positive legislative evaluation of a specific private, idiosyncratic interest. The main distinction between objective and subjective rights lies in the creation, in the latter case, of a correspondent duty on everyone or on a definite subject, with clear consequences in terms of judicial remedies available.Footnote 132 In the case of exceptions, the general interest to achieve a balance between copyright and fundamental rights becomes an objective right and finds application in favor of a specific subject every time the protection of his or her fundamental right(s) is subordinated to the possibility of exercising the exception itself.
In lack of significant case law in the field, the only precedents available to orient the analysis are those concerning the horizontal effect of fundamental rights on contractual relations. Although not all the Member States have experienced similar degrees of judicial development, in the last decade the path of “constitutionalization” of contract law has been followed by an increasing number of countries. Common criteria used in the scrutiny of the agreement are the proportionality of the contractual restriction imposed on the exercise of fundamental rights and the gravity of the prejudice as compared with the goals pursued by the contract, where proportionality plays the most important role.Footnote 133 Seeming as if courts would had wanted to draw a parallelism between legal and contractual interventions, these elements show an impressive similarity to the criteria used for assessing the legitimacy of legislative limitations of property rights or, more generally, fundamental rights.
If translated into the area of digital copyright contracts, these judicial doctrines may support the denial of effectiveness of an EULA clause that restricts users’ prerogatives attributed by law, when such a restriction is neither proportionate nor necessary to pursue the goal underlying the license contract, which is to authorize otherwise illegitimate uses. In fact, no authorization is needed for acts included in the scope of exceptions, nor can their limitation be deemed essential to the protection of authors’ rights, if they are integral to laws that aim to protect the moral and material interests of the author.Footnote 134 This does not exclude, however, the need for a case-by-case judicial analysis, which may alter the balance in favor of authors’ rights—they being also fundamental rights—if the circumstances so require.
The qualification of exceptions in terms of objective rights makes it hard to justify an ex officio judicial intervention on a freely stipulated agreement and has already hindered the effective application of consumer protection tools on EULA clauses compressing free uses.Footnote 135 Yet when the application of the exception is necessary for the enjoyment of a user’s fundamental right, and the gravity of the prejudice caused by its restriction is not proportionate to the goals pursued by the contract and to the (social) function of copyright law, a judicial enforcement of such terms may result in an indirect violation of the fundamental right, the protection of which underlies the statutory limitation. As a consequence, although the objective right conferred by the exception may not constitute the ground for an independent cause of action, the actual impairment of a user’s fundamental right may surely be used as a defense against the licensor’s claims. This would allow the “fair balance” between conflicting interests to operate also when their regulation is remitted to private ordering, thus bridging the gap between copyright law and copyright contracts created by the InfoSoc Directive and progressively broadened by the CJEU. Social function, once again, is fundamental to a specification of the content of the balancing test—in this case, the proportionality of the contractual restriction—and to the orientation of its application.
Conclusions
With a more thorough reconstruction of its content and implications in light of Member States’ legal framework, the paradigm shift and propertization caused by EU law and the ECFR may turn from a problematic mine zone to a stimulating opportunity to rethink and reframe EU copyright law. A new, systematic approach to the subject, based on a deconstructed analysis of the implications that copyright propertization should have if correctly embedded in Member States’ legal systems, may lead to several positive results. First, it may assist national legal formants in solving the most controversial interpretative short circuits generated by the clash between multilevel legal sources. Second, it may ensure more legal certainty in the formulation and application of the criteria to be used when pursuing the “fair balance” between copyright and fundamental rights, at the same time achieving a greater coherence with the values underlying the legal systems involved. Third, it may help national courts to abandon the traditional passive and deferential attitude towards statutory law and gain a more prominent role in the process of developing EU copyright law. A more solid set of State case laws may create a positive bottom-up pressure on EU courts to take more seriously into consideration the relevance of national legal traditions and to avoid the inconsistencies generated by a poorly directed harmonization. If the EU and national dots are reorganized and connected in a more ordered and structured fashion, property may finally cease to constitute a dangerous rhetoric tool and start instead to perform the role of a new, effective, and long-waited systematic framework.
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
See, e.g., Hugenholtz and Senftleben (2011).
- 3.
Especially in the fields of cross-border licensing, collective management, and ISPs’ liability. For an interesting analysis of the positions of different stakeholders in the European Union, see Mazziotti (2013).
- 4.
See infra, §2.
- 5.
See infra, note 84.
- 6.
- 7.
On the cryptic nature of Article 17 ECFR, see Geiger (2009), p. 115.
- 8.
See infra, note 21.
- 9.
On the relationship between the ECFR and national constitutions and, more generally, on the impact of the Charter on the protection of fundamental rights in Europe in light of CJEU’s case law, see the overview provided by Advocate General Kokott in Kokott and Sobotta (2010). On convergences and divergences in the multilevel protection of fundamental rights see Besselink (2012), p. 63.
- 10.
See infra, §4.
- 11.
See infra, §3.
- 12.
Ibid.
- 13.
The definition was used in the “Bill for the Encouragement of Learning and for Securing the Property of Copies of Books to the rightful Owners thereof.” The text is reported by Rose (1993), pp. 36 ff.
- 14.
Millar v. Kinkaid, 4 Burr. 2303, 98 Eng. Rep. 210 (1751), Tonson v. Collins, I Black W. 301, 321, (1760), and the most cited Donaldson v. Becket, 4 Burr. 2408, 98 Eng. Rep. 251(H.L. 1774).
- 15.
Particularly in the Mémoire de d’Héricourt. See Edelman (2004), pp. 239 ff.
- 16.
The same proprietary metaphor appears in the definition of “public domain” used by Le Chapelier in the report on the 1791 decree. See Moyse (1998), p. 1 and his ample bibliographical references.
- 17.
U.S. Constitution, art. I, section 8, cl. 8.
- 18.
Wheaton v. Peters, 33U.S. (8 Pet.) 590 (1834). For a more detailed comment see Joyce (2005), p. 325.
- 19.
- 20.
Mostly due to the “property as a relationship” approach. See Gambaro (2011), pp. 220 ff.
- 21.
- 22.
This is one—and maybe the most important—reason why the French droit d’auteur is considered as a bridge between the civil and common law traditions of copyright. On this line, Ginsburg (1990), p. 991; see also Kerever (1989), pp. 4 ff. The historical roots of French exceptionalism are analyzed by Halperin (2008).
- 23.
- 24.
On the particular relevance of the “sacred bond,” see Willem Grosheide (1994), p. 207.
- 25.
- 26.
- 27.
See, among others, Keeling (2003), pp. 28 ff. The conflict between intellectual property and fundamental freedoms are particularly evident in the early CJEU’s case law, e.g. in Deutsche Grammophon v. Metro, C-78/70, ECR 487 (1971), Coditel v. Ciné Vog Films, C-62/79, ECR 881 (1980), Warner Bros and Metronome Video v. Christiansend, C-158/86, ECR 2605 (1988), EMI Electrola v. Patricia Im-und Export, C-341/87, ECR 79 (1989).
- 28.
As in the Green Paper on copyright and the challenge of technology – Problems in copyright calling for immediate action, COM (88) 72 final, 17 June 1988, 3; Follow-up to the Green Paper – Working programme of the Commission in the field of copyright and neighbouring rights, COM (90) 584 final, 17 January 1991, 2–3; Green Paper on Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society, COM (95) 382 final, 25 July 1995, 10. For further comments, see Van Eechoud et al. (2004), pp. 5 ff.; see also Mazziotti (2008), pp. 46 ff.
- 29.
Green Paper on Copyright and the Challenge of Technology, supra note 28, 5; Follow-up, supra note 28, 4; Green Paper on Copyright and Related Rights, supra note 28, 10–12.
- 30.
Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs, OJ L-122, 17 May 1991, 42–46 [hereinafter Software 1 Directive], Recital 2; Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property, OJ L-346, 27 November 1992, 61–66, [hereinafter Rental Right Directive], Recital 7; Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission OJ L-248, 6 October 1993, 15–21, [hereinafter Satellite Directive], Recital 5; Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, OJ L-077, 7 March 1996, 20–28, [hereinafter Database Directive], Recital 7.
- 31.
Software 1 Directive, Recital 3; Rental Right Directive, Recital 6; Satellite Directive, Recital 9; Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonizing the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights, OJ L-290, 24 November 1993, 9–13, [hereinafter Copyright Term Directive], Recital 10; Database Directive, Recital 3.
- 32.
Software 1 Directive, Recitals 4–5; Rental Right Directive, Recitals 1–3; Satellite Directive, Recitals 2, 21; Copyright Term Directive, Recitals 2, 9, 11, 17, 25; Database Directive, Recital 3.
- 33.
Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, OJ L-167, 22 June 2001, 10–19 [hereinafter InfoSoc Directive], Recitals 2, 10 and 11.
- 34.
Id. Recital 9.
- 35.
See, e.g., Directive 2001/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art, OJ L-272, 13 October 2001, 32–36, Recitals 10, 11, 13, 14; Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, OJ L-157, 30 April 2004, 16–25, Recitals 1, 3, 8, 9, 10; Directive 2011/77/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011 on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights, OJ L-265, 27 September 2011, 1–6, Recital 21. Even in the recent Directive 2012/28/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on certain permitted uses of orphan works, OJ L-299, 27 October 2012, 5–12, which has different targets, similar rationales are recalled in Recital 4.
- 36.
InfoSoc Directive, Recital 4.
- 37.
As emphasized by Peukert (2011), p. 67.
- 38.
The most relevant decisions are Dima v. Romania, App. No. 58472/00 (2005); Melnychuk v. Ukraine, (2006) 42EHRR 42; Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal (2005), 44 EHHR 42. See Helfer (2008), p. 1.
- 39.
Geiger (2009), p. 121.
- 40.
Id. at p. 77.
- 41.
See supra notes 21 and 22.
- 42.
For further comments and doctrinal references to the divide between statutory and constitutional property in civil law, with particular regard to intellectual property, see Dreier (2013), p. 94.
- 43.
See, e.g., 18 BVerfGE 85 (1964); 31 BVerfGE 29 (1971); 31 BVerfGE 270 (1971); 31 BVerfGE 275 (1971); 49 BVerfGE 382 (1978); 79 BVerfGE 1 (1988); 79 BVerfGE 29 (1988); 81 BVerfGE 12 (1989); 81 BVerfGE 208 (1990). For a more detailed analysis, see Braegelmann (2009–2010), p. 99.
- 44.
Schoolbook case, 31 BVerfGE 229 (1971).
- 45.
§ 46,Urheberrechtsgesetz, BGBl I (1965).
- 46.
Schoolbook, supra note 44, at 241.
- 47.
Ibid.
- 48.
Id. at 247–248.
- 49.
31 BVerfGE 248 (1971).
- 50.
49 BVerfGE 382 (1978).
- 51.
BVerfGE, June 29, 2000, 2001 GRUR 149. For further analysis, see Geller (2009–2010), pp. 907 ff.
- 52.
See, e.g., Buydens and Dusollier (2008) (especially the contributions of C. Caron (p. 240), and M. Vivant (p. 290), and their broad bibliographical references). However, the Conseil Constitutionnel has very recently upheld Act no.2012-287, which allows the digitalization and reissuing of no longer exploited copyrighted books, on the ground of the fact that the right to property can be limited for reasons of public interests. Cons. Const., décision no 2013-370 QPC, 28 février 2014, JORF du 2 mars 2014, p. 4120.
- 53.
As clearly shown by Corte Cost., 4 July 1996, n. 236, in Giur. Cost., 1996, 2135. See Moscarini (2006), pp. 161 ff.
- 54.
“Although the assimilation is possible up to a certain extent, e.g. in case of expropriation of patents under Articles 60 ff. of the R.D. n. 1127/1939” (author’s translation). Corte Cost., 20 March 1978, n. 20, in Giur. Cost, 1978, 446.
- 55.
Corte Cost., 21 June 2005, n. 345, in Giur. Cost., 2005, 327.
- 56.
Corte Cost., 3 March 1986, n. 42, in Giur. Cost., 1986, 330.
- 57.
Corte Cost., 23 March 1995, n. 108, in AIDA, 1995, 297.
- 58.
See Moscarini (2006), pp. 162 ff.
- 59.
- 60.
Laserdisken ApS v. Kulturministeriet, Case C-479/04, [2006] ECDR 30.
- 61.
Productores de Música de España (Promusicae) v Telefónica de España SAU, Case C-275/06, [2008] ECR I-271.
- 62.
Id. at para 67.
- 63.
Id. at para 70.
- 64.
Id. at para 68.
- 65.
See the critiques moved by Drassinower (2009), p. 991.
- 66.
Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM), Case C-70/10, 24 November 2011.
- 67.
Belgische vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v. Netlog NV, Case C-360/10, 16 February 2012.
- 68.
Bonnier Audio AB and Others v Perfect Communication Sweden AB, Case C-461/10, 19 April 2012.
- 69.
Netlog, para 41; Scarlet Extended, para 43.
- 70.
Netlog, para 43; Scarlet Extended, para 45.
- 71.
Netlog, paras 46–50; Scarlet Extended, paras 48–52.
- 72.
Bonnier Audio, paras 55–57.
- 73.
The mere “cosmetic” nature of the CJEU’s constitutionalization of copyright law is also emphasized by Griffiths (2013), p. 78.
- 74.
Eva-Maria Painer v. Standard VerlagsGmbH et al., Case C-145/10, 1 December 2011.
- 75.
Id. at paras 101–103.
- 76.
Id. at paras 105–110.
- 77.
Id. at para 107.
- 78.
Id. at para 135.
- 79.
See recently, e.g., Nintendo Co. Ltd and Others v PC Box Srl and 9Net Srl, Case C-355/12, 23 January 2014, and UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v Constantin Film Verleih GmbH and Wega Filmproduktionsgesellschaft GmbH, Case C-314/12, 27 March 2014.
- 80.
Martin Luksan v. Petrus van der Let, Case C-277/10, 9 February 2012.
- 81.
Id. at para 67.
- 82.
Id. at paras 69–70.
- 83.
Id. at para 68.
- 84.
- 85.
The decision of the Tribunal of Rome in the Peppermint case and the final decisive intervention of the national authority for privacy protection constitute some of the most paradigmatic examples of the phenomenon. Ord. Trib. Roma sez. IX civ. 9 February 2007 and 14 July 2007, in Diritto dell’Internet, n. 5/2007, 465, with comments of R. Caso and G. Scorza. The case is analyzed in depth in this book by F. Giovanella, who proposes the adoption of an analytical framework based on national cultural influences to understand and implement the balance between copyright enforcement and the right to privacy.
- 86.
- 87.
As in Hugenholtz and Senftleben (2011), p. 10.
- 88.
See infra, note 108.
- 89.
For an analysis of the role played by social function in national constitutions, see Van Banning (2001), pp. 148 ff.
- 90.
- 91.
- 92.
As clearly stated by the French Conseil Constitutionnel in two historical decisions. Cons. const. 25 July 1989, 89-256 D.C., 53, and Cons. const. 8 January 1991, RIPIA n.163-1991, 326. See Libchaber (2006), pp. 659 ff.
- 93.
Recently spelled out by the Italian Constitutional Court, when interpreting Art. 42 Cost. in light of the ECtHR’s case law on property rights. Corte Cost., 24 October 2007, n. 348–349, available at www.cortecostituzionale.it.
- 94.
Van Banning (2001), p. 149.
- 95.
Nevertheless, scholars draw a parallelism between general interest and social function. See, e.g., Calliess (2007), p. 456.
- 96.
The Court’s clearest affirmation of the deference can be found in Handyside v. United Kingdom, 1 EHRR 737 (1976): “The second paragraph of Article 1 sets the Contracting States as the sole judges of the necessity of an interference.” Similarly, e.g.Draon v. France, 42 EHHR 40 (2006), and Scordino v. Italy, 45 EHHR 7 (2007).
- 97.
Sporrong and Lonnroth v Sweden 5 EHRR 35 (1983), 69.
- 98.
- 99.
See Allen (2006), pp. 123 ff., analyzing the emphasis put on economic losses in the ECtHR’s balancing test. However, the nature of the interest underlying property protection plays an interesting role. The deference towards commercial property, for example, is much less strong than the one shown when the right to habitation comes into play. Compare, e.g., the approach adopted in Gasus dosier- und fördertechnik GmbH v. The Netherlands, (1995) 20 EHRR 403 with Venditelli v. Italy, (1995) 19 EHRR 464. For a more detailed analysis, see Shutte (2004), pp. 46 ff.
- 100.
Hauer v. Land Rheinland-Pfalz, Case C-44/79, [1979] ECR 3727.
- 101.
Id. at paras 20 and 32.
- 102.
Nold v. Commission, Case C-4/73, [1974] ECR 491.
- 103.
Id. at para 14.
- 104.
Ibid.
- 105.
Van den Bergh Foods Ltd. v. Commission, Case T-65/98R [2004] ECR II-4653.
- 106.
See., e.g., Alliance for Natural Health et al. v. Secretary of State for Health and National Assembly for Wales, Cases C-154/04 and C-155/04 (2005), ECR I-6451, which states the admissibility of the restriction to protect public health.
- 107.
As in, e.g., Regione autonoma Friuli-Venezia Giulia e Agenzia regionale per lo sviluppo rurale (ERSA) v. Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali, Case C-347/03 (2005), ECR I-3785;Commission v. Germany, Case C-113/82, 19 April 1983; Zuckerfabrik v. Hauptzollamt Aachen et al., Cases C-23 to 36/06 (2008), OJ C-158, 2; Unitymark Ltd, North Sea Fishermen’s Organisation v. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Case C-535/03 (2006), ECR I-2689.
- 108.
Rodotà (2005), p. 159, argues that EU law brings the property “constitutional clock” back of a whole century.
- 109.
Graziadei (2011), p. 194.
- 110.
The implications of the EU multilevel constitutionalism have been so broadly analyzed by scholars that it is impossible to provide a full account of the wide array of literature on the subject. Suffice it to mention, for a comprehensive overview of the doctrinal and judicial debate on the interplay between the ECHR and national constitutions, Lenaerts (2012), p. 375.
- 111.
On which, see infra, note 133.
- 112.
Promusicae, supra note 61, para 68.
- 113.
Football Association Premier League Ltd and Others v QC Leisure and Others, Case C-403/08, and Karen Murphy v Media Protection Services Ltd, Case C-429/08, (2012) EWHC 108.
- 114.
Id. at paras 163–164. The same argument is used in Eva-Maria Painer, supra note 74, para 133.
- 115.
On the same line, see Geiger (2013), pp. 157 ff., who also gives account of the doctrinal contributions on the theory of social function of intellectual property (p. 156, note 9).
- 116.
Senftleben (2004), p. 118.
- 117.
InfoSoc Directive, Article 5(5).
- 118.
On the various national approaches to the test, see Griffiths (2009), pp. 495 ff.
- 119.
Supra note 84.
- 120.
Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening, Case C-302/10, 17 January 2012.
- 121.
- 122.
Geiger et al. (2010), p. 120.
- 123.
See supra note 115.
- 124.
Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, OJ L 304-64, 22 November 2011, Article 5(1)(h) and Article 6(1)(r).
- 125.
InfoSoc Directive, Recital 45.
- 126.
Database Directive, Article 15.
- 127.
Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs, OJ L 111/16, 5 May 2009, Article 5 (2)–(3), and Article 6.
- 128.
As for the case of the Public Consultation on the Review of the EU Copyright Rules, launched by the Commission in December 2013. The questionnaire is available at http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2013/copyright-rules/docs/consultation-document_en.pdf (last access September 12, 2014).
- 129.
Like Belgium, Ireland and Portugal. See Guibault (2008), pp. 537 ff.
- 130.
- 131.
The Reflexwirkung theory originates from Jellinek (1919), pp. 70 ff.
- 132.
As in Gervais (1961), pp. 246–247.
- 133.
- 134.
Guibault (2002), p. 269.
- 135.
Id. at p. 272.
References
Alexander G (2003) Property as a fundamental constitutional right? The German example. Cornell Law Rev 88:733
Allen T (2006) Property and the Human Rights Act of 1998. Hart, Oxford
Baulch L, Green M, Wyburn M (eds) (1999) ALAI study days – the boundaries of copyright: its proper limitations and exceptions. Australian Copyright Council, Redfern
Besselink LFM (2012) General report. In: Laffranque J (ed) The protection of fundamental rights post-Lisbon: the interaction between the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the European Convention on Human Rights and national constitutions. Tartu University Press, Tallin, p 63
Braegelmann T (2009–2010) Copyright Law in and under the Constitution – the constitutional scope and limits to Copyright Law in the United States in comparison with the scope and limits imposed by constitutional and European Law on Copyright Law in Germany. Cardozo Arts Entertain Law J 27:99
Buydens M, Dusollier S (eds) (2008) L’intérêt général et l’accès à l’information en propriété intellectuelle. Bruylant, Bruxelles
Calliess E (2007) The fundamental right to property. In: Ehlers D (ed) European fundamental rights and freedoms. De Gruyter, Berlin, p 456
Cherednychenko OO (2007) Fundamental rights, contract law and the protection of the weaker party. Sellier, Munich
Çoban AR (2004) Protection of property rights within the European Convention on human rights. Ashgate, Aldershot
Cohen Jehoram H (2005) Restrictions on copyright and their abuse. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 27:359
Derclaye E (2010) Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening: wonderful or worrisome? Eur Intellect Prop Rev 53:247
Desbois H (1978) Le droit d’auteur en France, 2nd edn, mise a jour 1973. Dalloz, Paris
Drassinower A (2009) From distribution to dialogue: remarks on the concept of balance in copyright law. J Corporation Law 34:991
Dreier T (2013) How much ‘Property’ is there in intellectual property? The German civil law perspective. In: Howe H, Griffiths J (eds) Concepts of property in intellectual property law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 94
Edelman B (2004) Le sacre de l’auteur. Dalloz, Paris
Gambaro A (1995) Il diritto di proprietà. Giuffrè, Milano
Gambaro A (2011) Property rights in comparative perspective: why property is so ancient and durable. Tulane Eur Civil Law Forum 26
Geiger C (2006) Constitutionalising intellectual property law. The influence of fundamental rights on intellectual property in Europe. Int Rev Intellect Prop Competition Law 37:375
Geiger C (2009) Intellectual property shall be protected!? – Article 17(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: a mysterious provision with an unclear scope. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 31
Geiger C (2013) The social function of intellectual property rights, or how ethics can influence the shape and use of IP law. In: Dinwoodie GB (ed) Intellectual property law: methods and perspectives. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 153–176
Geiger C, Griffiths J, Hilty RM, Suthersanen U (2010) Declaration on a balanced interpretation of the three-step test in copyright law. J Intellect Prop Inf Technol E-Commerce Law 1:119
Geller PE (1994) Must copyright be forever caught between marketplace and authorship norms? In: Sherman B, Strowel A (eds) Of authors and origins. Essays on copyright law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 170
Geller PE (2009–2010) A German approach to fair use. Test cases for TRIPS criteria for copyright limitations. J Copyright Soc U S A 57
Gervais A (1961) Quelques réflexions à propos de la distinction des “droits” et des “intérêts. Mélanges en l’honneur de Paul Roubier. Dalloz, Paris, p 246
Ginsburg J (1990) A tale of two copyrights: literary property in revolutionary France and America. Tulane Law Rev 64
Graziadei M (2011) Disciplina internazionale e circolazione dei modelli proprietari. L’incidenza del diritto internazionale sul diritto civile. Napoli
Griffiths J (2009) The ‘Three-Step Test’ in European copyright law – problems and solutions. Intellect Prop Q 4:428–457
Griffiths J (2013) Constitutionalising or harmonising? The Court of Justice, the right to property and European copyright law. Eur Law Rev 38: 65
Grundmann S (2008) Constitutional values and European contract law. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen an den Rijn
Guibault L (2002) Copyright limitations and contracts: an analysis of the contractual overridability of limitations on copyright. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
Guibault L (2008) Relationship between copyright and contract law. In: van Derclaye E (ed) Research handbook on the future of EU copyright law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, p 537
Halperin JL (2008) Histoire du Droit des Biens. Dalloz, Paris
Harris DJ et al (2009) O’Boyle & Warbrick: law of the European convention on human rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Helfer L (2008) The new innovation frontier? Intellectual property & the European Court of human rights. Harv Int Law J 49:1
Hugenholtz PB (2001) Copyright and freedom of expression in Europe. In: Dreyfuss TC et al (ed) Expanding the boundaries of intellectual property: innovation policy for the knowledge society. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 3443
Hugenholtz PB, Senftleben M (14 November 2011) Fair use in Europe: in search of flexibilities. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1959554. Last access 12 Sept 2014
IVIR (2007) Study on the implementation and effect in Member States’ laws of directive 2001/29, Final Report (February 2007). http://www.ivir.nl/publications/guibault/Infosoc_report_2007.pdf. Last access 12 Sept 2014
Jellinek G (1919) System der subjektiven offentlichen Rechten. Mohr, Tubingen
Joyce C (2005) A curious chapter in the history of judicature: Wheaton v. Peters and the rest of the story (of copyright in the New Republic). Houston Law Rev 42:325
Keeling DT (2003) Intellectual property rights in EU law: free movement and competition law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Kerever A (1989) Révolution Française et droit d’auteur. Revue Internationale du droit d’auteur 141
Kokott J, Sobotta C (2010) The charter of fundamental rights of the European Union after Lisbon. EUI Working Paper AEL 2010/6. http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/15208/AEL_WP_2010_06.pdf?sequence=3. Last access 12 Sept 2014
Kommers DP, Miller RA (2012) The constitutional jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany. Duke University Press, Durham
Lenaerts K (2012) Exploring the limits of the EU charter of fundamental rights. Eur Constitutional Law Rev 8:375
Libchaber R (2006) La propriété, droit fondamental. In: Cabrillac R et al (eds) Libertés et droits fondamentaux, 12th edn. PUF, Paris, p 659
Lucas A (1998) Droit d’auteur et numérique. Litec, Paris
Lucas A (2010) For a reasonable interpretation of the three-step test. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 6:277
Mak C (2008) Fundamental rights in European private law. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn
Mattei U (2000) Basic principles of property law. A comparative legal and economic introduction. Praeger, Westport
Mazziotti G (2008) EU digital copyright and the end-user. Springer, Berlin
Mazziotti G (2013) Copyright in the EU digital single market. Reports of the CEPS Digital Forum, June 2013. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2307855. Last access 12 Sept 2014
Mincke W (1996) Objects of property rights. In: Van Maanen GE, Van Der Walt A (eds) Property law on the threshold of the 21st century. Maklu, Antwerpen-Apeldoorn, pp 655 ff
Moscarini A (2006) Proprietà privata e tradizioni costituzionali comuni. Giuffrè, Milano
Moyse PE (1998) La nature du droit d’auteur: droit de propriété ou monopole? McGill Law J 43:1
Natoli U (1976) La proprietà. Appunti dalle lezioni. Giuffrè, Milano
Peukert A (2011) Intellectual property as an end in itself. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 67:68
Rodotà S (2005) Il progetto della Carta europea e l’art. 42 Cost. In: Comporti M (ed) La proprietà nella Carta Europea dei diritti fondamentali. Milano, p 159
Rose M (1993) Authors and owners. The invention of copyright. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Salvi C (1994) Il contenuto del diritto di proprietà, in Commentario del codice civile diretto da P. Schlesinger. Giuffrè, Milano
Schrage EJH (1996) Jus in re corporali perfecte disponendi: property from Bartolus to the New Dutch Civil Code of 1992. In: Van Maanen GE, Van Der Walt A (eds) Property law on the threshold of the 21st century. Antwerpen-Apeldoorn, p. 35
Senftleben M (2004) Copyright, limitations, and the three-step-test. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
Shutte CB (2004) The European fundamental right of property. Kluwer, Deventer
Strowel A (1993) Droit d’auteur et copyright. Divergences et convergences. Bruylant, Brussels
Strowel A, Tulkens F (2005) Freedom of expression and copyright under civil law: of balance, adaptation, and access. In: Griffiths J, Suthersanen U (eds) Copyright and free speech: comparative and international analyses. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 287
Van Banning TRG (2001) The human right to property. Intersentia, Antwerpen
Van Eechoud M (2012) Along the road to uniformity – diverse readings of the court of justice judgments on copyright work. J Intellect Prop Inf Technol E-Commerce Law 3:1
Van Eechoud M et al (2004) Harmonizing European copyright law. The challenges of better lawmaking. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn
Willem Grosheide F (1994) Paradigms in copyright law. In: Sherman B, Strowel A (eds) Of authors and origins. Essays on copyright law. Clarendon, Oxford, p 207
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sganga, C. (2015). EU Copyright Law Between Property and Fundamental Rights: A Proposal to Connect the Dots. In: Caso, R., Giovanella, F. (eds) Balancing Copyright Law in the Digital Age. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44648-5_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44648-5_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-44647-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-44648-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)