Amsterdam has a system of canals. But before boats and pleasure craft can take to Amsterdam’s waters, they need a licence from the local authority. Unfortunately, the authority handed out its boat licences a while back. In this case, a Dutch company now wishes to rent out its boat for either office parties or company ‘days-out’, and unsurprisingly its application was turned down. The aggrieved company is challenging the legality of the licensing system. It alleges that since the authority’s licences are for an unlimited duration, the system is disproportionate and shows that the authority acts arbitrarily – something contrary to EU Treaty law and the EU ‘services’ Directive 2006/123/EC. The authority denies that it is doing anything wrong: issuing a limited number of licences is a proportionate response designed to limit the congestion on Amsterdam’s canals; and even if it is wrong on that point, then this is a ‘purely internal situation’ to which EU law does not apply.
Continue readingAuthor Archives: admin
Case C-325/14, SBS Belgium – broadcasting via third parties
Some broadcasters no longer broadcast directly to the public. Instead, a broadcaster will supply their channels and programming output to ‘distributors’ such as the cable, telephone, and satellite TV companies. Subscribers to the services provided by these distributors can then watch the broadcaster’s output. This does however generate a question of copyright law. Namely, for the purposes of the EU’s InfoSoc Directive 2001/29/EC, who is making a ‘communication to the public’? Is it the broadcaster? Or is it the distributor? Or could it be both?
Continue readingCase C-74/14, Eturas – computerised cartels and limits on price discounts
In Lithuania, a travel agency ran a computerised online travel system which offered customers various package tours. However, when it came to offering customers discounts on the price of their holiday, the computer system put a ceiling on the maximum amount of discount which a customer could be offered. It was a computerised booking system that was used by many travel agents. Is this not an example of price-fixing among members of a concerted practice and thus contrary to Article 101 TFEU?
Continue readingCase C-62/14, Gauweiler – objecting to any unlimited bond buying spree by the ECB
If implemented, the European Central Bank’s 2012 Decision on Outright Monetary Transactions would allow the purchase of unlimited amounts of bonds from selected euro states teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. Is the Decision compatible with EU law?
Continue readingCase C-41/14, Christie’s France – the single market in reselling art works ‘Going! Going! Gone!’
When original works of art are resold, the EU’s artists’ resale right Directive 2001/84/EC requires that a royalty is paid to the author of the work by the seller. The Directive goes on to allow either the seller or professional sellers, such as art galleries, to share the liability for paying the royalty in accordance with national law. In this case, a French auction house decided to change its terms and conditions so that the buyer, and not the seller, became liable to pay the royalty. Can contract derogate from the seller’s obligation to pay the royalty that is enshrined in the Directive?
Continue readingCase C-30/14, Ryanair – grounding a go compare an airfare website
Price-comparison websites in the EU are often lawful because the websites they take their information from are databases frequently unprotected by either copyright or the ‘sui generis’ right enshrined in the EU’s Database Directive 96/9/EC. This is true of Ryanair’s website. But Ryanair’s website is however protected by a plank of deviant Dutch ‘copyright’ law. In this case, a Dutch website that compares the price of airfares is seeking to rely on a Dutch exception to the Dutch ‘copyright’ rule, an exception that corresponds to one found in the EU’s Database Directive. The legal question has become whether the Directive applies to all databases and thus websites – even the unprotected ones – and, if so, whether the price-comparison website qualifies as a ‘lawful user’, who does not need to obtain Ryanair’s consent to use Ryanair’s website.
Continue readingCase C-518/13, Eventech – driving a minicab through the rules governing bus lanes
London’s bus lanes can generally be used by ‘black cabs’ but not by ‘minicabs’. Do the rules underpinning that distinction: involve the use of state resources, constitute a disproportionate response in view of the policy aims of bus lanes, and threaten to affect trade between the Member States? If they do, then they could be an illegal state aid.
Continue readingCase C-421/13, Apple – seeking trade mark protection for the layout and design of a retail store
Is the layout and design of a shop capable of being protected by EU trade mark law? And if so, then what conditions should be attached to prevent a right holder from invoking their monopoly against the stores of their competitors?
Continue readingCase C-328/13, Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund – in the wake of collective agreements
Can the EU’s transfer of undertakings Directive 2001/23 be relied upon to stop workers becoming seriously worse off when a parent-company decides that the terms and conditions of its employees will no longer be governed by the collective agreement that binds the parent-company but by the collective agreement that binds a daughter-company?
Continue readingCase C-316/13, Fenoll – it is no holiday in a French work rehabilitation centre
Where a handicapped person is placed with a French work rehabilitation centre in order to facilitate his integration into society and to ensure that he flourishes on the labour market, must he work and follow the labour-market courses but without accruing any rights to paid annual leave? Or would that be contrary to the EU’s working time Directive 2003/88?
Continue reading