Privacy and the regulation of 2012

This paper explores the European Commission’s proposal for a new Regulation to update and reform data protection law in Europe. As regards the Regulation itself, without presenting an exhaustive analysis of all the provisions, this paper aims to highlight some significant changes proposed to the data protection regime by comparison between Directive 95/46 and the proposed Regulation. It takes particularly into account legislative innovation concerning data protection principles, data subjects’ rights, data controllers and data processors obligations, and the regulation of technologies. Before analyzing these innovations, it introduces some considerations about the Commission’s choice to use a Regulation instead of a Directive to harmonize national data protection regime.     

Legal grounds to process personal data under Spanish legislation after the ECJ Judgment of 24 November 2011 (the ASNEF and FECEMD case)

Spanish law on personal data protection regulates (among other issues) the legal bases that permit the processing of data in a way that is similar to that set out in Directive 95/46/EC. Consent constitutes the general rule although data may be processed without it if necessary for administration functions, within the framework of a contractual relationship, in order to safeguard the vital interests of the data subject or if they are included in sources accessible to the public. However, unlike the Directive, legitimate interest is not recognised as an independent reason for processing data, whereas a legal ground that is not set out in community law is included, i.e., sources accessible to the public. This paper analyses these two cases, taking as its starting point consent, along with the consequences that the ECJ Judgment of 24 November 2011 regarding the interpretation of Article 7 of Directive 95/46/EC may have and giving attention to the revision of this Directive itself.     

Reforming the Market or the State? Article 30 and the European Constitution: Economic Freedom and Political Rights

This article takes as its starting-point the relationship between Article 30 of 30 of the EC Treaty (general rule on the free movement of goods) and the European Constitution. On the one hand, it examines Article 30 in the context of the constitutional dilemmas facing the European Union, particularly the balance of powers to be defined between Member States and the Union, between public power and the market, and between the legitimacy of Community law vis à vis that of national law. On the other hand, it reviews different conceptions of the European Economic Constitution by analysing the role of Article 30 in the review of market regulation.     

The new EU cybersecurity framework: The NIS Directive,ENISA's role and the General Data Protection Regulation

The NIS Directive is the first horizontal legislation undertaken at EU level for the protection of network and information systems across the Union. During the last decades e-services, new technologies, information systems and networks have become embedded in our daily lives. It is by now common knowledge that deliberate incidents causing disruption of IT services and critical infrastructures constitute a serious threat to their operation and consequently to the functioning of the Internal Market and the Union. This paper first discusses the Directive's addressees particularly with regard to their compliance obligations as well as Member States’ obligations as regards their respective national strategies and cooperation at EU level. Subsequently, the critical role of ENISA in implementing the Directive, as reinforced by the proposal for a new Regulation on ENISA (the EU Cybersecurity Act), is brought forward, before elaborating upon the, inevitable, relationship of the NIS Directive with EU's General Data Protection Regulation.     

Principle of Community exhaustion upheld by Court of Justice

The European Court of Justice confirmed that Article 4(2) ofthe Information Directive did not permit member states to introduceor retain a rule of international exhaustion of the distributionright and rejected a challenge to the validity of that provision.     

The Distance Selling Directive: Points for Future Revision

The EU Distance Selling Directive that was implemented in UK law in the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 has provided guidelines for the protection of consumers undertaking distance transactions. The following paper discusses the provisions of the Directive with particular reference to e-commerce via the Internet, highlighting some possible areas for further consideration. Articles within the Distance Selling Directive are examined for problems of legal interpretation and implementation. There is discussion of: Article 2 (Definitions) and difficulties with its fundamental concepts of 'supplier' and 'consumer'; unnecessary exemptions in Article 3 (Exemptions); the 'local taxes' headache (and others) in Article 4 (Prior Information) and using e-mail under Article 5 (Written Confirmation of Contract). Under Article 6 (Right of Withdrawal), the 'cooling off period', exempted goods and services, refunds and reclaiming goods, and for Article 7 (Performance) substitute goods and contract law implications, are investigated. Finally Article 8 (Payment by Card) looks at protection against fraudulent card use.     

An academic perspective on the copyright reform

The recently proposed new Copyright Directive was released on 14 September 2016. It has been described by EU law-makers as the pillar of the copyright package promised by the European Commission (EC), to be delivered before the end of Mr. Juncker's mandate. In its Communication of 6 May 2015, the EC had stressed “the importance to enhance cross-border access to copyright-protected content services, facilitate new uses in the fields of research and education, and clarify the role of online services in the distribution of works and other subject-matter.” The proposed Copyright Directive is thus a key measure aiming to address two of these three issues. However it is not without shortfalls.We have therefore decided to publicly express our concerns and send an open letter to the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council to urge them to re-assess the new provisions dealing with mandatory filtering of user-generated content in the light of the CJEU case law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.In a more extended statement, we examine in details the text of both the explanatory memorandum and the Directive itself.Our conclusions are:1. A comprehensive re-assessment of Article 13 and Recital 39 in the light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the E-commerce Directive (in particular Article 15) including CJEU case law is needed, as the proposed Copyright Directive does not expressly address the issue of its compatibility with both of these texts.2. Recital 38 does not clarify the domain and effect of Article 13. Rather, it creates confusion as it goes against settled CJEU case law (relating to Articles 14 and 15 of the E-commerce Directive and Article 3 of the Infosoc Directive). Recital 38 should therefore be deleted or substantially re-drafted/re-phrased. If the EU wants to introduce a change in this regard it should clearly justify its choice. In any case, a recital in the preamble to a directive is not an appropriate tool to achieve this effect.We hope that this exercise will prove useful for the debate that has now begun both in the European Parliament and in the Council.     

Article 53(b) EPC: A Challenge to the Novartis Theory of European Patent History

The authoritative ( Novartis/transgenic plant systems ) interpretation of the Article 53(b) EPC exclusion from European patentability of plant and animal varieties, and essentially biological processes for the creation of plants and animals, is considered, and its significance for the trend of EPO jurisprudence and legitimacy of the EC Biotechnology Patenting Directive noted. The Enlarged Board of Appeal's justification for that interpretation in Novartis with reference to the exclusion's legislative history is challenged, and an alternative theory of that history proposed, based on a thorough analysis of the unpublished travaux préparatoires for the Strasbourg and European Patent Conventions. In addition to elucidating the framers' (actual and presumed) intent with respect to the Article 53(b) exclusion, that analysis offers an insight into post-war legal unification methodology and its continued impact on one of the most contentious and technical areas of intellectual property law.     

The European Commission's Opinions under Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive

The contribution examines the Opinions which the European Commissionhas issued so far under Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43 (HabitatsDirective). It examines Member States' reasoning for justifyingthe application of Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive inthe light of the European Court of Justice rulings, and comesto the conclusion that probably not one of the cases submittedwould have been accepted by the Court.     

Law Applicable in the Absence of Choice – The New Article 4 of the Rome I Regulation

The applicable law to a contract in the absence of the parties' choice is governed by Article 4 of the Rome Convention, which has been implemented in the UK by the Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990. This rule adopts the 'closest connection principle' as a basic principle to decide the applicable law, but also introduces specific presumptions to simplify the process. The current rule has been criticised for its uncertainty. As a result, a substantive change has been provided in the Rome I Regulation, which aims to modernise the current choice of law rules in contractual obligations and convert the Rome Convention into a Council Regulation. The new Article 4 aims to enhance certainty and to overcome the difficulties of the current rules of the Rome Convention. However, a close scrutiny of the new Article 4 shows that it does not properly achieve its aim. The article aims to critically analyse Article 4 of the Rome I Regulation and to provide suggestions for its interpretation and understanding.     

Opinion 1/15 of the Grand Chamber dated 26 July 2017 about the agreement on Passenger Name Record data between the EU and Canada

On 26 July 2017, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice rendered its seminal Opinion 1/15 about the agreement on Passenger Name Record data between the EU and Canada. The Grand Chamber considered that the decision of the Council about the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the agreement between the EU and Canada about the transfer and processing of PNR data must be based jointly on Article 16(2) about the protection of personal data and Article 87(2)(a) about police co-operation among member states in criminal matters, but not on Article 82(1)(d) about judicial co-operation in criminal matters in the EU of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. The Grand Chamber also considered that the agreement is incompatible with Article 7 on the right to respect for private life, Article 8 on the right to the protection of personal data, Article 21 on non-discrimination and Article 52(1) on the principle of proportionality of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU since it does not preclude the transfer, use and retention of sensitive data. In addition to the requirement to exclude such data, the Grand Chamber listed seven requirements that the agreement must include, specify, limit or guarantee to be compatible with the Charter.The opinion of the Grand Chamber has far-reaching implications for the agreement on PNR data between the EU and Canada. It has also far-reaching implications for international agreements on PNR data between the EU and other third states. Last, it has far-reaching implications for Directive 681 of 27 April 2016 on PNR data.     

The policy origins of the European economic constitution

This article traces the origins of the European economic constitution in the debate on Article 30 of the EC Treaty (general rule on the free movement of goods) between 1966 and 1969, which resulted in Directive 70/50. In this, the first archive‐based analysis of the policy origins of the Court's Dassonville (1974) decision, the article demonstrates that there was a strong continuity in the investment by a number of key actors in focusing on Article 30 to create the single market from the mid‐1960s. These civil servants and lawyers provided the backbone for the Commission's transformation of the Cassis de Dijon judgment (1979) into a powerful tool, driving back the need for legislative harmonisation and making it a cornerstone of the Single European Act of 1986. The article therefore analyses one of the key moments in the transformation of European law.     

欧盟法中的商标权权利穷竭原则

欧盟的货物自由流动原则与商标权的地域保护存在内在冲突。为了解决冲突 ,欧洲法院通过诸多判例在欧共体条约第 30条和欧共体商标指令第 7条法律框架下导入、发展、完善了商标权权利穷竭原则。欧洲法院在货物自由流动原则和权利穷竭原则下分别开设了两个例外 ,对原则和例外的解释旨在寻求商标所有权人合法权益与欧共体共同市场内的自由流动这一基本利益的平衡。贯穿在法院判决思路中的是对商标的完整性与主要功能的呵护和对欧洲一体化的极力推进。     

欧盟版权指令第15条之评价与反思:以超链接规制为视角

欧盟现有法律对于超链接的侵权管制过于严格,这种做法没有平衡公共利益和著作权人的利益,造成了对著作权的过度保护.虽然最终通过的《数字化单一市场著作权指令》第15条规定新闻出版媒体的邻接权规则不适用于超链接行为,但是这并未从根本上解决对超链接的著作权规制过严问题.为了促进互联网上信息的自由流通以及用户的表达自由,法官应当对超链接提供者与网络平台的侵权责任进行区分,并且仅在超链接导致侵权结果时对链接提供者进行追责.     

EU Refugee Qualification Directive: a Brave New World?

This article aims to map some of the major implications forasylum–related law in Europe of the Refugee QualificationDirective, which twenty-four EU Member States were requiredto implement by 10 October 2006. It seeks to build on importantstudies of the Directive completed by, among others, Hemme Battjes,in his book European Asylum Law and International Law, Nijhoff2006, and Jane McAdam, in her book Complementary Protectionin International Refugee Law, OUP 2007, albeit it takes a differentview of some key questions. Part 2 deals with the impact of the Directive on the applicationand interpretation of the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967Protocol. It is argued that, even read simply as a set of provisionsgiving interpretive guidelines on the application of the RefugeeConvention, it affects many things concerned with refugee eligibility,since these provisions cover key elements of the refugee definition. Part 3 deals with the impact of the Directive on the asylum-relatedhuman rights jurisdiction that currently prevails in Europein one form or another.¹ It is argued that the effect of theDirective is and must be to render Article 3 ECHR protection– or its domestic equivalent – a largely residualcategory, save in exclusion cases. Part 4 addresses to what extent, if at all, the Directive containsmandatory provisions and how, post-implementation, these canbe integrated into the national law of Member States. It isargued that, considered in purely textual terms, the key definitionaland interpretive provisions of the Directive are mostly in mandatoryform. Further, that whilst, by virtue of being a minimum standardsdirective, the Directive allows Member States to introduce orretain more favourable standards (A3), the same article stipulatesthat such standards must be compatible with the Directive. Thatproviso is of some importance given that the Directive’spreamble (at R7) identifies as one objective the avoidance ofsecondary movements. In relation to articles of the Directivewhich specify in mandatory terms how elements of the refugeedefinition are to be applied, Member States cannot be free tointroduce or retain differing standards. Parts 5 and 6 analyse suggested differences, first, betweenthe Directive’s refugee definition and the Refugee Convention(it is argued that the only potential difference of real significanceconcerns the Directive’s rendering of the Article 1F exclusionclauses of the Refugee Convention) and, secondly, between theDirective’s subsidiary protection definition and Article3 ECHR. The extent of symmetry between the new subsidiary protectioncriteria and ECHR protection under Article 3 is explored, inparticular, arguing that, whilst there are three respects inwhich subsidiary protection criteria are narrower (relatingto personal scope; the existence of cessation and exclusionclauses; and limited application to ‘health cases’),there may be limited respects in which it may be broader inscope than Article 3 ECHR. Part 7 examines patterns of implementation in the light of earlyevidence to hand from, for example, the November 2007 UNHCRsurvey of five Member States. The UK is considered as a furtherexample, that of a member state where, despite it being seenas unnecessary to make any substantial changes, the implementingmeasures have required important changes in method of approachand in conceptual language.     

Are works communicated through television sets in hotel rooms a 'communication to the public'?

The European Court of Justice makes it clear that, while themere provision of physical facilities does not as such amountto a communication within the meaning of the Copyright Directive(2001/29/EC), the distribution of a signal by means of televisionsets by a hotel to customers staying in its rooms, whatevertechnique is used to transmit the signal, constitutes communicationto the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the Directive.     

《民法典》夫妻债务认定规则中的“合意型共债”——兼论《民法典》第1064条的体系解读

《民法典》第1064条中所规定的“合意型共债”并未引起学界的普遍重视,但在司法实践中却造成了一定的乱象,并潜藏着巨大的道德风险。通过考察《法国民法典》第1415条的规定,可以发现我国“合意型共债”司法困境的根源所在:并未意识到配偶一方同意内涵的多元性,没有对“授权型合意”与“负债型合意”做出区分。这一区分可以通过对第1064条的文义解释被我国法所吸纳。在此基础上,第1064条规定的共同债务的两种类型得以呈现,第1064条与家事代理权制度、分别财产制约定以及离婚时共同债务的清偿规则间的关系也可得到厘清。     

O'Keeffe v Ireland: The Liability of States for Failure to Provide an Effective System for the Detection and Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse in Education

In O'Keeffe v Ireland, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights found that Ireland failed to protect the applicant from sexual abuse suffered as a child in an Irish National School in 1973 and violated her rights under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights. This note argues that the decision is important in expanding the Court's jurisprudence regarding positive obligations under Article 3 to child sexual abuse in a non‐state setting where there was no knowledge of a ‘real and immediate’ risk to the applicant. It also argues that the case raises concerns about the Court's methodology for the historical application of the Convention and about the interaction of Article 3 positive obligations with vicarious liability in common law tort regimes.     

The Data Protection (Amendment) Act, 2003: the Data Protection Directive and its implications for medical research in Ireland

Directive 95/46/EC on the Protection of Individuals with regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data has been transposed into national law and is now the Data Protection (Amendment) Act, 2003. The Directive and the transposing Act provide for new obligations to those processing data. The new obligation of primary concern is the necessity to obtain consent prior to the processing of data (Article 7, Directive 95/46/EC). This has caused much concern especially in relation to 'secondary data' or 'archived data'. There exist, what seem to be in the minds of the medical research community, two competing interests: (i) that of the need to obtain consent prior to processing data and (ii) the need to protect and foster medical research. At the same time as the introduction of the Act, other prior legislation, i.e. the Freedom of Information Act, 1997-2003, has encouraged candour within the doctor-patient relationship and the High Court in Ireland, in the case of Geoghegan v. Harris, has promulgated the 'reasonable-patient test' as being the correct law in relation to the disclosure of risks to patients. The court stated that doctors have a duty to disclose all material risks to patients. The case demonstrates an example of a move toward a more open medical relationship. An example of this rationale was also recently seen in the United Kingdom in the House of Lords decision in Chester v. Afshar. Within the medical research community in Ireland, the need to respect the autonomy of patients and research participants by providing information to such parties has also been observed (Sheikh A. A., 2000 and Irish Council for Bioethics, 2005). Disquiet has been expressed in Ireland and other jurisdictions by the medical research communities in relation to the exact working and meaning of the Directive and therefore the transposing Acts (Strobl et al). This may be due to the fact that, as observed by Beyleveld "The Directive makes no specific mention of medical research and, consequently, it contains no provisions for medical research as an explicitly delineated category." (Beyleveld D., 2004) This paper examines the Irish Act and discusses whether the concerns expressed are well-founded and if the Act is open to interpretation such that it would not hamper medical research and public health work.     

作为债之独立类型的法定补偿义务

在公法和社会法领域内,法定补偿义务作为债的独立类型由来已久。但就法定补偿义务可否作为私法上独立类型之债,与合同之债、侵权之债、不当得利之债、无因管理之债等并身而立,民法学界远未达成共识。若从解释论角度出发进行分析,侵权责任法若干条款规定的补偿义务、"分担损失"规则以及"有财产的无民事行为能力人、限制民事行为能力人造成他人损害的,从本人财产中支付赔偿费用"等,都属有关法定补偿义务的规定。它们与民法通则及最高人民法院相关司法解释确认的法定补偿义务一起,构成我国民法中独立类型之债。在我国的责任保险制度尚不发达,社会保障制度还远未健全的背景下,如果法定补偿义务制度运用得当,无疑可在一定程度上济侵权损害赔偿责任制度之穷。