De weergave van dit artikel is misschien niet optimaal, omdat deze is overgenomen uit onze oudere databank.


Hof van Beroep te Brussel, 28 januari 2010, Scarlet Extended tegen SABAM (met dank aan Kristof Neefs, Altius). 

Auteursrecht. Prejudiciële vragen  aan het HvJ inzake ISP content filtering (voor eerste aanleg, zie IEF 4301)/ Engelse vertaling van een gedeelte van het Franstalige arrest: 

1. Do Directives 2001/29 and 2004/48, read in conjunction with Directives 95/46, 2000/31 and 2002/58 and interpreted with regard to Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, allow Member States to authorize a national court, seized in a procedure on the merits and on solely on the basis of the legal provision which holds that “They [the national court] can equally impose a prohibitory injunction on intermediaries whose services are relied upon by a third party to infringe copyright or a neighbouring right”, to order an ISP to put into place, vis-a-vis all of its customers, in abstracto and as a preventive measure, at the expense of the ISP and without limitation in time, a system filtering all electronic communications, both incoming and outcoming, passing through its service, in particular by means of peer to peer software, with the aim to identify the circulation on its network of electronic files containing a musical, cinematographic or audiovisual work to which the claimant alleges to enjoy rights and to then block the transfer thereof, either at the request or at the time it is sent?
2. In case question 1 is answered in the positive, do these directives require that the national court, seized to rule over a request for injunctive relief against an intermediary on whose services a third party relies to infringe a copyright, applies the principle of proportionality when it is asked to rule over the efficacy and the dissuasive effect of the requested measure?

Lees het arrest hier.