Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 November 2011.

Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM).

Reference for a preliminary ruling: Cour d'appel de Bruxelles - Belgium.

Information society - Copyright - Internet - ‘Peer-to-peer’ software - Internet service providers - Installation of a system for filtering electronic communications in order to prevent file sharing which infringes copyright - No general obligation to monitor information transmitted.

Case C-70/10.


Top of the page Documents in the Case
Document Date Name of the parties Subject-matter Curia EUR-Lex
Judgment (OJ)
13/01/2012 Scarlet Extended
Judgment
ECLI:EU:C:2011:771
24/11/2011 Scarlet Extended
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Judgment (Summary)
ECLI:EU:C:2011:771
24/11/2011 Scarlet Extended
Opinion
ECLI:EU:C:2011:255
14/04/2011 Scarlet Extended
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Application (OJ)
01/05/2010 Scarlet Extended
View pdf documents
Top of the page Legal analysis of the decision or of the case

Reports of Cases

2011 I-11959

Subject-matter

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Cour d’appel de Bruxelles – Interpretation of Directives 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 2001 L 167, p. 10), 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45), 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31), 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1), 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (‘Directive on privacy and electronic communications’) (OJ 2002 L 201, p. 37) – Processing of data passing through the Internet – Introduction by operators of a system for filtering electronic communications, in abstracto and as a preventive measure in order to identify users allegedly using files damaging copyright or related rights – Application of its own motion by the national court of the principle of proportionality – European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – Right to respect for privacy – Right to freedom of expression

Systematic classification scheme

1.
1 The legal order of the European Union
  1.04 Fundamental rights
    1.04.03 The fundamental rights
      1.04.03.08 Protection of personal data
1 The legal order of the European Union
  1.04 Fundamental rights
    1.04.03 The fundamental rights
      1.04.03.11 Freedom of expression and information
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.11 Approximation of laws
    4.11.09 Harmonised intellectual property rights
      4.11.09.03 Copyright and related rights
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.11 Approximation of laws
    4.11.10 Enforcement of intellectual property rights
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.11 Approximation of laws
    4.11.11 Information and communication technologies
      4.11.11.02 Information society


Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

Operative part

  • Interprets : Directive 2000/31
  • Interprets : Directive 2001/29
  • Interprets : Directive 2004/48
  • Interprets : Directive 95/46
  • Interprets : Directive 2002/58

Opinion

  • Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2007), Article 7 : points 31, 34, 69, 71, 73, 81, 108, 115
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2007), Article 8 : points 31, 34, 69, 71, 73, 81, 82, 108, 115
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2007), Article 11 : points 31, 34, 69, 71, 85, 86, 108, 115
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2007), Article 17 : points :, 71, 90
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2007), Article 52 : points 31 - 34, 36, 37, 41, 42, 69, 72, 86, 89, 92, 93, 113, 115
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2007), Article 52 -P7 : points 31, 33
  • TFEU, Article 2 : point 67
  • TEU, Article 6 : points :, 29, 83
  • Directive 95/46 : points 69, 70, 73, 115
  • Directive 95/46 -C1 : point 70
  • Directive 95/46 -C2 : point 70
  • Directive 95/46 -C10 : points 70, 73
  • Directive 95/46 -C27 : point 70
  • Directive 97/66 -A05 : point 83
  • Directive 2000/31 : points :, 69, 115
  • Directive 2000/31 -A15 : points :, 105, 112
  • Directive 2000/31 -A15P1 : points 70, 105
  • Directive 2000/31 -A121 : point 105
  • Directive 2000/31 -C9 : point 70
  • Directive 2000/31 -C15 : point 83
  • Directive 2001/29 : points :, 69, 89, 90, 111, 115
  • Directive 2001/29 -A08P3 : point 70
  • Directive 2001/29 -C3 : point 90
  • Directive 2001/29 -C4 : point 90
  • Directive 2002/22 : point 105
  • Directive 2002/58 : points :, 69, 70, 73, 75, 79, 81, 83, 105, 115
  • Directive 2002/58 -A01P1 : point 73
  • Directive 2002/58 -A05 : points :, 81, 83
  • Directive 2002/58 -A15 : points :, 83
  • Directive 2002/58 -A15P1 : point 80
  • Directive 2002/58 -C1 : point 73
  • Directive 2002/58 -C2 : point 73
  • Directive 2002/58 -C3 : point 70
  • Directive 2002/58 -C7 : point 73
  • Directive 2002/58 -C10 : point 73
  • Directive 2002/58 -C11 : points 70, 73
  • Directive 2002/58 -C24 : points 70, 73
  • Directive 2004/48 : points :, 69, 89, 90, 111, 115
  • Directive 2004/48 -A08 : point 75
  • Directive 2004/48 -A09P1LA : point 70
  • Directive 2004/48 -C1 : point 90
  • Directive 2004/48 -C10 : point 90
  • Directive 2006/24 : points 75, 77, 80
  • Directive 2006/24 -A04 : points 70, 80
  • Directive 2006/24 -A11 : point 80
  • Directive 2006/24 -C9 : point 70
  • Directive 2006/24 -C24 : point 70
  • Regulation 2004/2006 : point 105
  • Directive 2009/136 -C30 : point 105
  • Commission - COM Document (Other than Draft Legislation) - 52000DC0890 : point 73
  • Commission - COM Document (Other than Draft Legislation) - 52003DC0702 : point 1
  • Commission - COM Document (Other than Draft Legislation) - 52008DC0465 : point 1
  • Commission - COM Document (Other than Draft Legislation) - 52010DC0779 : point 1
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -55/80 : point 91
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -169/80 : point 67
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -143/83 : point 67
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -294/83 : point 67
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -158/86 : point 91
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -257/86 : point 67
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -46/87 : point 37
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -85/87 : point 37
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -92/87 : point 67
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -325/91 : point 67
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -92/92 : point 91
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -143/93 : point 67
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -338/95 : point 67
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -354/95 : point 67
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -368/95 : point 37
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -177/96 : point 67
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -60/00 : point 37
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -465/00 : point 73
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -78/01 : point 67
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -17/03 : point 67
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -6/04 : point 67
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -479/04 : point 90
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -508/04 : point 67
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -402/05 : point 67
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -275/06 : points 4, 75
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -73/07 : point 73
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -370/07 : point 67
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -550/07 : point 67
  • Court of Justice - Order C -557/07 : point 75
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -226/08 : point 67
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -340/08 : point 67
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -407/08 : point 37
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -50/09 : point 67
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -57/09 : point 30
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -77/09 : point 67
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -92/09 : points 30, 37, 73
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -145/09 : point 30
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -208/09 : point 30
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -225/09 : point 67
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -236/09 : point 30
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -243/09 : point 30
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -279/09 : points 30, 33
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -444/09 : point 30
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -339/10 : point 30
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -360/10 : point 61
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -400/10 : point 31
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -461/10 : point 75
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -491/10 : point 30


Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

  • 05/02/2010

Date of the Opinion

  • 14/04/2011

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

24/11/2011


References

Publication in the Official Journal

Application: OJ C 113 from 01.05.2010, p.20

Judgment: OJ C 25 from 28.01.2012, p.6

Name of the parties

Scarlet Extended

Notes on Academic Writings

  1. Rüger, David ; Stadler, Arthur: Scarlet Extended: Vereinbarkeit von Internet-Blockiersystemen zum Urheberrechtsschutz mit europäischen Grundrechten, European Law Reporter 2011 p.131-132 (DE)
  2. Heidinger, Roman: Die zivilrechtliche Inanspruchnahme von Access-Providern auf Sperre urheberrechtsverletzender Webseiten, Österreichische Blätter für gewerblichen Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht 2011 p.153-163 (DE)
  3. Manara, Cédric: Fournisseur d'accès : mise en place d'un système de filtrage, Recueil Le Dalloz 2011 p.2925 (FR)
  4. Costes, Lionel: Affaire Sabam : l'analyse de la CJUE, Droit de l'immatériel : informatique, médias, communication 2011 nº 77 p.31-33 (FR)
  5. Dolhar, Žiga: Filtriranje avtorskih vsebin, Pravna praksa 2011 nº 47 p.25-26 (SL)
  6. Papapanagiotou, Archontoula: Dikaio Meson Enimerosis & Epikoinonias 2011 p.573-577 (EL)
  7. Benko, Radoslav: Výber z rozhodnutí Súdneho dvora Európskych spoločenstiev 2011 nº 6 p.62-65 (SK)
  8. Idot, Laurence: Internet, piratage et obligations de filtrer les communications électroniques, Europe 2012 Janvier Comm. nº 1 p.44 (FR)
  9. Roth, Hans-Peter: Überwachungs- und Prüfungspflicht von Providern im Lichte der aktuellen EuGH-Rechtsprechung, Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht 2012 p.125-128 (DE)
  10. Manara, Cédric: Le droit du commerce électronique après l'arrêt Scarlet, Droit de l'immatériel : informatique, médias, communication 2012 nº 78 p.67-70 (FR)
  11. Troianiello, Antonino: La CJUE s'oppose au filtrage généralisé de l'internet, Droit de l'immatériel : informatique, médias, communication 2012 nº 78 p.71-75 (FR)
  12. Guthfreund-Roland, Florence ; Marrache, Élisabeth: Arrêt Sabam : requiem pour « Hadopi 3 » ?, Droit de l'immatériel : informatique, médias, communication 2012 nº 78 p.76-78 (FR)
  13. Castets-Renard, Céline: Protection du droit d'auteur confrontée aux droits fondamentaux : point trop n'en faut !, Droit de l'immatériel : informatique, médias, communication 2012 nº 79 p.6-10 (FR)
  14. Spindler, Gerald: Juristenzeitung 2012 p.311-313 (DE)
  15. Rizzuto, Francesco: Injunctions against Intermediate Online Service Providers, Computer and Telecommunications Law Review 2012 p.69-73 (EN)
  16. Roux, Olivier: Le refus communautaire d'un réseau internet régulé par un filtrage général : les affaires Scarlet et Netlog, Revue de jurisprudence de droit des affaires 2012 nº 4 p.315-320 (FR)
  17. Rantou, Marianna: I evaisthiti isorropia anamesa sto dikaioma tou dimiourgou kai ta dikaiomata ton christon kai ton parochon ypiresion sto diadiktyo, Nomiko Vima 2012 p.200-202 (EL)
  18. Melis, Francesco: La Corte di giustizia Ue pone limitazioni alla tutela del copyright sulla rete, Giornale di diritto amministrativo 2012 p.632-636 (IT)
  19. Helberger, N. ; Van Hoboken, J.: (Fast)food for thoughts: de uitspraak van het Hof van Justitie in de Scarlet/Sabam-zaak, Nederlands tijdschrift voor Europees recht 2012 p.75-82 (NL)
  20. Dommering, E.J.: De zaak Scarlet/Sabam. Naar een horizontale integratie van het auteursrecht, AMI: Tijdschrift voor auteurs-, media & informatierecht 2012 p.49-53 (NL)
  21. Meale, Darren: SABAM v Scarlet: Of Course Filtering of the Internet is Unlawful, but this Isn't the End of the Story, European Intellectual Property Review 2012p.429-432 (EN)
  22. D'Angelo, Chiara: Corte europea di giustizia, 24 novembre 2011, C-70/10, Europa e diritto privato 2012 p.663-672 (IT)
  23. Sammarco, Pieremilio: Alla ricerca del giusto equilibrio da parte della Corte di giustizia UE nel confronto tra diritti fondamentali nei casi di impiego di sistemi tecnici di filtraggio, Il diritto dell'informazione e dell'informatica 2012 p.297-305 (IT)
  24. Psychogiopoulou, Evangelia: Copyright Enforcement, Human Rights Protection and the Responsibilities of Internet Service Providers after Scarlet, European Intellectual Property Review 2012 p.552-555 (EN)
  25. Colangelo, Margherita: Internet e sistemi di filtraggio tra enforcement del diritto d'autore e tutela dei diritti fondamentali: un commento ai casi Scarlet e Netlog, La nuova giurisprudenza civile commentata 2012 p.580-588 (IT)
  26. Hugenholtz, P.B.: Nederlandse jurisprudentie ; Uitspraken in burgerlijke en strafzaken 2012 nº 480 (NL)
  27. Tréfigny, Pascale: Droit du numérique. Obligations et responsabilité du FAI, Recueil Le Dalloz 2012 p.2347-2348 (FR)
  28. Benabou, Valérie-Laure: Droit d'auteur et droits voisins - Échanges de fichiers au moyen de logiciels peer-to-peer - Système de filtrage des communications électroniques - Droit au respect de la vie privée, Propriétés intellectuelles 2012 nº 42 p.47-51 (FR)
  29. Van der Heijden, M.J.C. ; Kulk, S.: Intellectuele eigendom & Reclamerecht 2012 p.306-308 (NL)
  30. Kulk, Stefan ; Zuiderveen Borgesius, Frederik: Filtering for copyright enforcement in Europe after the Sabam cases, European Intellectual Property Review 2012 p.791-795 (EN)
  31. Rantou, Marianna: The growing tension between copyright and personal data protection on an online environment: The position of Internet Service Providers according to the European Court of Justice, European Journal of Law and Technology 2012 Vol.3 Issue 2 p.1-24 (EN)
  32. Kulk, Stefan ; Zuiderveen Borgesius, Frederik: Mediaforum: Tijdschrift voor Media- en Communicatierecht 2012 p.98-100 (NL)
  33. : AIDA - Annali italiani del diritto d'autore, della cultura e dello spettacolo (Ed. Giuffrè-Milano) 2012 p.461-465 (IT)
  34. Savola, Pekka: Internet-operaattori ja perusoikeudet, Oikeustiede-Jurisprudentia 2013 p.127-221 (FI)
  35. Chavannes, Remy: Belangenafweging in het informatierecht, Mediaforum: Tijdschrift voor Media- en Communicatierecht 2013 p.188-197 (NL)
  36. Keustermans, Jeff: On the responsibility of internet service providers and the absence of a general obligation to monitor information transmitted, LANDMARK IP DECISIONS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE 2008-2013 (Ed. Larcier - Brussels) 2014 p.152-157 (EN)
  37. Pecin, Suzana: Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice vis-a-vis Sodišču Evropske unije - tehtanje med svobodo izražanja in avtorsko pravico v spletnem okolju, Pravna praksa 2017 nº 16-17 p.6-8 (SL)
  38. Ferge, Zsigmond: A szerzői jog által védett zenei mű nyilvános wifihálózaton keresztül történő letöltésre való rendelkezésre bocsátásával kapcsolatos felelősség kérdéseinek tisztázása, Iparjogvédelmi és Szerzői Jogi Szemle 2017 2. szám p.75-107 (HU)
  39. Treppoz, Edouard: Droit européen de la propriété intellectuelle, Revue trimestrielle de droit européen 2017 n°4 p.864-868 (FR)
  40. Maisner, Martin: Filtrování ze strany ISP ve světle aktualit evropského práva, Bulletin advokacie 2017 nº 4 p.34-39 (CS)
  41. Fialová, Eva: Právo na přístup k internetu, Právník: teoreticky casopis pro otázky státu a práva 2018 nº7 p.545-557 (CS)



Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

Cour d'appel de Bruxelles - Belgium

Subject-matter

  • Freedom of establishment
  • Freedom to provide services
  • Approximation of laws
  • Consumer protection
  • Fundamental rights
  • Data protection

Procedure and result

  • Reference for a preliminary ruling

Formation of the Court

troisième chambre (Cour)

Judge-Rapporteur

Malenovský

Advocate General

Cruz Villalón

Language(s) of the Case

  • French

Language(s) of the Opinion

  • French