Intellectual Property in the UK and Europe – Speech by Lord Neuberger
Intellectual Property in the UK and Europe (PDF)
Speech by Lord Neuberger
Burrell Lecture for the Competition Law, 1st April 2014
Source: www.supremecourt.uk
Category: EC law
Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and others (Irish Human Rights Commission intervening); In re Kärntner Landesregierung and others – WLR Daily
‘Parliament and Council Directive 2006/24/EC of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC was invalid.’
WLR Daily, 8th April 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Chagossians update – UK Human Rights Blog
‘The appeal is against the decision of the Divisional Court in Bancoult v. FCO (read judgment and see my post here). Mr Bancoult had said that the decision to create the MPA was flawed by having an improper purpose (to stymie the Chagossians’ claims for resettlement), by inadequate consultation, and being a breach of an EU obligation to promote the economic and social development of the islands. The Court ruled against all these claims.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 11th April 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
4finance UAB v Valstybinė vartotojų teisių apsaugos tarnyba and another – WLR Daily
‘Annex I, point 14, of Parliament and Council Directive 2005/29/EC meant that a pyramid promotional scheme constituted an unfair commercial practice only where such a scheme required the consumer to give financial consideration, regardless of its amount, for the opportunity to receive compensation that was derived primarily from the introduction of other consumers into the scheme rather than from the sale or consumption of products.’
WLR Daily, 3rd April 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Deutsche Bahn AG and others (Respondents) v Morgan Advanced Materials Plc (Appellant) – Supreme Court
Deutsche Bahn AG and others (Respondents) v Morgan Advanced Materials Plc (Appellant) [2014] UKSC 24 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 9th April 2014
EU court of justice overturns law that would enable ‘snoopers’ charter’ – The Guardian
‘The European court of justice has declared the data retention directive illegal, torpedoing UK government schemes for the so-called “snooper’s charter” of wide-ranging collection of phone and internet data.’
The Guardian, 8th April 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Littlewoods Retail Ltd and others v Revenue and Customs Commissioners (No 2) – WLR Daily
‘Sections 78 and 80 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 could not be construed in such a way as to conform with European Union law and therefore had to be disapplied so as to allow the claimant companies to pursue their claims to recover the full value of overpaid value added tax.’
WLR Daily, 28th March 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v Constantin Film Verleih GmbH and Another – WLR daily
‘A person who made protected subject matter available to the public on a website without the agreement of the copyright holder, for the purpose of article 3(2) of Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29/EC, was using the services of the Internet service provider of the persons accessing that subject matter, which had to be regarded as an “intermediary” within the meaning of article 8(3) of the Directive. The fundamental rights recognised by EU law did not preclude a court injunction prohibiting an Internet service provider from allowing its customers access to a website placing protected subject matter online without the agreement of the rightholders when that injunction did not specify the measures which that access provider had to take and when that access provider could avoid incurring coercive penalties for breach of that injunction by showing that it had taken all reasonable measures, provided that (i) the measures taken did not unnecessarily deprive Internet users of the possibility of lawfully accessing the information available and (ii) that those measures had the effect of preventing unauthorised access to the protected subject matter or, at least, of making it difficult to achieve and of seriously discouraging Internet users who were using the services of the addressee of that injunction from accessing the subject-matter that had been made available to them in breach of the intellectual property right, that being a matter for the national authorities and courts to establish.’
WLR Daily, 27th March 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) v National Lottery Commission – WLR Daily
‘In an application for a declaration of invalidity of a Community trade mark, where the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (“OHIM”) was called upon to take account of the national law of the member state in which protection was given to an earlier mark on which the application was based, OHIM had to, of its own motion and by whatever means considered appropriate, obtain information about that national law, where such information was necessary for the purposes of assessing the applicability of a ground for invalidity relied on before it and of assessing the accuracy of the facts adduced or the probative value of the documents submitted.’
WLR Daily, 27th March 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
No maternity rights for commissioning mother in surrogacy case – UK Human Rights Blog
‘The European Court (CJEU) has now considered two requests for preliminary ruling made in proceedings between intended mothers (also referred to as a commissioning mother) who have had babies through a surrogacy arrangement, and their employers concerning the refusal to grant them paid leave following the birth of the babies. It has replied that EU law does not provide for commissioning mothers to be entitled to paid leave equivalent to maternity leave or adoption leave.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 26th March 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
No maternity rights for surrogate parents? – Halsbury’s Law Exchange
‘In the recent cases of CD v ST and Z v A Government Department and the Board of Management of a Community School, the ECJ clarified the EU position regarding the protections and benefits that should be afforded to mothers having children through surrogacy arrangements.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 26th March 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
Habitual Residence – Habitual Problems – Family Law Week
‘Joshua Viney, pupil at 1 Hare Court, considers the implications of the Court of Appeal judgment in Tan v Choy and the ongoing debate concerning the fifth indent of Article 3 of Brussels IIR.’
Family Law Week, 26th March 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
Is a limited recourse agreement no longer an effective weapon against winding-up? – 11 Stone Buildings
‘This article questions the decision in ARM Asset-Backed Securities S.A. [2013] EWHC 3351 CH which found that a company was insolvent despite a contractual limited recourse provision which provided that the company was not liable to pay its bondholders more than its available funds.’
11 Stone Buildings, February 2014
Source: www.11sb.com
Care Proceedings: The European Dimension – Family Law Week
‘Michael Jones, barrister of 15 Winckley Square Chambers, offers a guide to practitioners conducting care proceedings involving families with European origins.’
Family Law Week, 25th March 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
An English Judge in Europe – The Rt Hon. Lady Justice Arden
An English Judge in Europe (PDF)
Speech by The Rt Hon. Lady Justice Arden
Judiciary of England and Wales, 11th March 2014
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
Scot Peterson: Constitutional Entrenchment in England and the UK – UK Constitutional Law Association
‘Frequently people think that there are only two ways address flexibility in a constitution: to legally entrench an entire document and to protect it with strong judicial oversight, or to have a political constitution and a sovereign parliament, which, in the words of A.V. Dicey, ‘has … the right to make or unmake any law whatever….’ One aspect of this sovereignty is that parliament cannot bind itself: ‘That Parliaments have more than once intended and endeavoured to pass Acts which should tie the hands of their successors is certain, but the endeavour has always ended in failure.’’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 25th March 2014
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
Right to privacy: can we really trust Google Glass? – Halsbury’s Law Exchange
‘It is difficult to have missed the hype surrounding Google Glass (referred to simply as “Glass”), not only because of its futuristic technological capabilities and design, but also the concerns it raises for an individual’s Art 8 right to privacy.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 24th March 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
Data protection and compensation: the “irreversible march” towards revolutionary change – Panopticon
‘At 11KBW’s Information Law conference this past Tuesday, I talked a bit about the progress of the draft EU Data Protection Regulation. I omitted to mention last week’s development (my reason: I was on holiday in Venice, where data protection seemed less pressing). In a plenary session on 12 March, the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly in support of the Commission’s current draft of the Regulation. This is all explain in this Memo from the European Commission. Here are some key points.’
Panopticon, 21st March 2014
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
Why unelected judges should get our vote: reflections on Lord Neuberger’s Law Lecture – Halsbury’s Law Exchange
‘In his Cambridge Freshfield Lecture, Lord Neuberger gave a number of reasons, historical, geographical and emotional, for the view expressed in the Daily Mail and other newspapers that, “it is unacceptable for unelected judges to impose a diktat on a democratically elected parliament”. He said that this was a “peculiarly British” view, aimed particularly at the rulings on EU law by judges in Luxembourg and on human rights by judges in Strasbourg. But I am not going to write about that. No, what troubles me about Lord Neuberger’s citation from the Daily Mail is the complaint about rulings (diktats) being made by “unelected judges”.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 18th March 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
Avoiding the nuclear option: the EU moves to strengthen the rule of law – UK Human Rights Blog
‘Within the past week the EU Commission has laid down its plans for protecting the rule of law across Europe and, importantly, for punishing member states that fail to meet rule of law standards. At first glance this appears to be a landmark in the EU’s regulation of the rule of law, fundamental rights and democracy, but is it the solution it claims to be?’
UK Human Rights Blog, 17th March 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
