Grounds
|
|
1. This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Directives:
|
1. Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nanaša na razlago direktiv:
|
|
– 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);
|
– 2000/31/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 8. junija 2000 o nekaterih pravnih vidikih storitev informacijske družbe, zlasti elektronskega poslovanja na notranjem trgu (Direktiva o elektronskem poslovanju) (UL L 178, posebna izdaja v slovenščini, poglavje 13, zvezek 25, str. 399);
|
|
– 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);
|
– 2001/29/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 22. maja 2001 o usklajevanju določenih vidikov avtorske in sorodnih pravic v informacijski družbi (UL L 167, posebna izdaja v slovenščini, poglavje 17, zvezek 1, str. 230);
|
|
– 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, and corrigendum OJ 2004 L 195, p. 16);
|
– 2004/48/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 29. aprila 2004 o uveljavljanju pravic intelektualne lastnine (UL L 157, posebna izdaja v slovenščini, poglavje 17, zvezek 2, str. 32, in popravek UL L 195, str. 16);
|
|
– 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); and
|
– 95/46/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 24. oktobra 1995 o varstvu posameznikov pri obdelavi osebnih podatkov in o prostem pretoku takih podatkov (UL L 281, posebna izdaja v slovenščini, poglavje 13, zvezek 15, str. 355), in
|
|
– 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).
|
– 2002/58/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 12. julija 2002 o obdelavi osebnih podatkov in varstvu zasebnosti na področju elektronskih komunikacij (Direktiva o zasebnosti in elektronskih komunikacijah) (UL L 201, posebna izdaja v slovenščini, poglavje 13, zvezek 29, str. 514).
|
|
2. The reference has been made in proceedings between Scarlet Extended SA (‘Scarlet’) and the Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) (‘SABAM’) concerning Scarlet’s refusal to install a system for filtering electronic communications which use file-sharing software (‘peer-to-peer’), with a view to preventing file sharing which infringes copyright.
|
2. Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru spora med družbo Scarlet Extended SA (v nadaljevanju: Scarlet) in družbo Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) (v nadaljevanju: SABAM), ki se je nanašal na to, da je prvonavedena družba zavrnila vzpostavitev sistema za filtriranje elektronskih komunikacij v obliki programske opreme za izmenjavo datotek (tako imenovani „peer‑to‑peer“), katerega namen je preprečiti izmenjavo datotek, ki pomeni kršitev avtorske pravice.
|
|
Legal context
|
Pravni okvir
|
|
European Union law
|
Pravo Unije
|
|
Directive 2000/31
|
Direktiva 2000/31
|
|
3. Recitals 45 and 47 in the preamble to Directive 2000/31 state:
|
3. V uvodnih izjavah 45 in 47 Direktive 2000/31 je navedeno:
|
|
‘(45) The limitations of the liability of intermediary service providers established in this Directive do not affect the possibility of injunctions of different kinds; such injunctions can in particular consist of orders by courts or administrative authorities requiring the termination or prevention of any infringement, including the removal of illegal information or the disabling of access to it.
|
„(45) Omejitve odgovornosti posrednih ponudnikov storitev, določene v tej direktivi, ne posegajo v možnost izdajanja sodnih odredb; te odredbe so lahko sodne ali upravne, ki zahtevajo ustavitev ali preprečitev vseh kršitev, vključno z odstranitvijo nezakonitih podatkov ali onemogočenjem dostopa do njih;
|
|
…
|
[…]
|
|
(47) Member States are prevented from imposing a monitoring obligation on service providers only with respect to obligations of a general nature; this does not concern monitoring obligations in a specific case and, in particular, does not affect orders by national authorities in accordance with national legislation.’
|
(47) Države članice ponudnikom storitev ne morejo predpisati splošnih obveznosti glede nadzora; to se ne nanaša na nadzorne obveznosti v posebnih primerih in zlasti ne posega v odredbe, ki jih sprejmejo nacionalni organi skladno z nacionalno zakonodajo;“
|
|
4. Article 1 of Directive 2000/31 states:
|
4. Člen 1 te direktive določa:
|
|
‘1. This Directive seeks to contribute to the proper functioning of the internal market by ensuring the free movement of information society services between the Member States.
|
„1. Cilj te direktive je prispevati k pravilnemu delovanju notranjega trga z zagotavljanjem prostega pretoka storitev informacijske družbe med državami članicami.
|
|
2. This Directive approximates, to the extent necessary for the achievement of the objective set out in paragraph 1, certain national provisions on information society services relating to the internal market, the establishment of service providers, commercial communications, electronic contracts, the liability of intermediaries, codes of conduct, out-of-court dispute settlements, court actions and cooperation between Member States.
|
2. Ta direktiva usklajuje, kolikor je to potrebno za dosego ciljev iz odstavka 1, nekatere nacionalne določbe o storitvah informacijske družbe glede notranjega trga, sedeža ponudnikov storitev, komercialnih sporočil, elektronskih pogodb, odgovornosti posrednikov, kodeksov ravnanja, izvensodnih poravnav sporov, sodnega varstva in sodelovanja med državami članicami.
|
|
…’
|
[…]“
|
|
5. Article 12 of that directive, which features in Section 4, entitled ‘Liability of intermediary service providers’, of Chapter II thereof, provides:
|
5. Člen 12 te direktive, ki je vključen v Oddelek 4 Poglavja II, naslovljen „Odgovornost posrednih ponudnikov storitev“, določa:
|
|
‘1. Where an information society service is provided that consists of the transmission in a communication network of information provided by a recipient of the service, or the provision of access to a communication network, Member States shall ensure that the service provider is not liable for the information transmitted, on condition that the provider:
|
„1. Države članice zagotovijo, da ponudnik storitve, če se storitev informacijske družbe nanaša na prenos podatkov, ki jih zagotovi prejemnik storitve, v komunikacijskem omrežju ali na zagotovitev dostopa do komunikacijskega omrežja, ni odgovoren za poslane podatke, če ponudnik:
|
|
(a) does not initiate the transmission;
|
(a) ne sproži prenosa;
|
|
(b) does not select the receiver of the transmission; and
|
(b) ne izbere prejemnika prenosa
|
|
(c) does not select or modify the information contained in the transmission.
|
in
|
|
…
|
(c) ne izbere ali spremeni podatkov, ki so predmet prenosa.
|
|
3. This Article shall not affect the possibility for a court or administrative authority, in accordance with Member States’ legal systems, of requiring the service provider to terminate or prevent an infringement.’
|
[…]
|
|
6. Article 15 of Directive 2000/31, which also features in Section 4 of Chapter II, states:
|
3. Ta člen ne posega v možnost, da sodišče ali upravni organ skladno s pravnimi sistemi držav članic od ponudnika storitve zahteva ustavitev ali preprečitev kršitev.“
|
|
‘1. Member States shall not impose a general obligation on providers, when providing the services covered by Articles 12, 13 and 14, to monitor the information which they transmit or store, nor a general obligation actively to seek facts or circumstances indicating unlawful activity.
|
6. Člen 15 Direktive 2000/31, ki je tudi v Oddelku 4 Poglavja II te direktive, določa:
|
|
2. Member States may establish obligations for information society service providers promptly to inform the competent public authorities of alleged unlawful activities undertaken or information provided by recipients of their service or obligations to communicate to the competent authorities, at their request, information enabling the identification of recipients of their service with whom they have storage agreements.’
|
„1. Države članice ponudnikom glede opravljanja storitev iz členov 12, 13 in 14 ne predpišejo splošne obveznosti za nadzor podatkov pri njihovem prenosu ali shranjevanju, pa tudi ne za dejavno raziskovanje okoliščin, na podlagi katerih se domneva, da gre za nezakonito dejavnost.
|
|
Directive 2001/29
|
2. Države članice lahko določijo, da morajo ponudniki storitev informacijske družbe nemudoma obvestiti pristojne organe o domnevnih nezakonitih dejavnostih ali podatkih prejemnikov njihove storitve ali da morajo pristojnim organom na zahtevo sporočiti podatke, na podlagi katerih je možno identificirati prejemnike njihove storitve, s katerimi so sklenili dogovore o shranjevanju.“
|
|
7. Recitals 16 and 59 in the preamble to Directive 2001/29 state:
|
Direktiva 2001/29
|
|
‘(16) … This Directive should be implemented within a timescale similar to that for the implementation of [Directive 2000/31], since that Directive provides a harmonised framework of principles and provisions relevant, inter alia, to important parts of this Directive. This Directive is without prejudice to provisions relating to liability in that Directive.
|
7. V uvodnih izjavah 16 in 59 Direktive 2001/29 je navedeno:
|
|
...
|
„(16) […] Ta direktiva naj se izvaja v časovnem obdobju, podobnem kot pri [Direktivi 2000/31], saj le-ta podaja usklajen okvir načel in predpisov, ki med drugim zadevajo pomembne dele te direktive. Ta direktiva ne vpliva na določbe, ki se nanašajo na odgovornost v [navedeni direktivi].
|
|
(59) In the digital environment, in particular, the services of intermediaries may increasingly be used by third parties for infringing activities. In many cases such intermediaries are best placed to bring such infringing activities to an end. Therefore, without prejudice to any other sanctions and remedies available, rightholders should have the possibility of applying for an injunction against an intermediary who carries a third party’s infringement of a protected work or other subject-matter in a network. This possibility should be available even where the acts carried out by the intermediary are exempted under Article 5. The conditions and modalities relating to such injunctions should be left to the national law of the Member States.’
|
[…]
|
|
8. Article 8 of Directive 2001/29 states:
|
(59) Še posebej v digitalnem okolju se storitve posrednikov lahko v čedalje večji meri uporabljajo s strani tretjih strank pri kršitvah. V mnogih primerih so takšni posredniki v najboljšem položaju, da odpravijo kršitve. Tako naj imajo imetniki pravic brez vpliva na razpoložljive sankcije in pravna sredstva možnost vložitve tožbe za opustitev dejanja proti posredniku, ki v omrežju prenese kršitev tretje stranke nad varovanim delom ali drugo vsebino. Ta možnost naj bo na razpolago tudi, kadar so dejanja posrednika izvzeta po členu 5. Pogoji in načini, povezani s tožbo za opustitev dejanja, morajo biti prepuščeni nacionalni zakonodaji držav članic.“
|
|
‘1. Member States shall provide appropriate sanctions and remedies in respect of infringements of the rights and obligations set out in this Directive and shall take all the measures necessary to ensure that those sanctions and remedies are applied. The sanctions thus provided for shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
|
8. Člen 8 Direktive 2001/29 določa:
|
|
…
|
„1. Države članice predvidijo ustrezne sankcije in pravna sredstva v zvezi s kršitvami pravic in obveznosti, ki jih določa ta direktiva, in sprejmejo vse potrebne ukrepe za zagotovitev, da se ta sankcije in pravna sredstva uporabljajo. Takšne sankcije so učinkovite, sorazmerne in odvračilne.
|
|
3. Member States shall ensure that rightholders are in a position to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe a copyright or related right.’
|
[…]
|
|
Directive 2004/48
|
3. Države članice zagotovijo, da imetniki pravic lahko zahtevajo sodno odredbo proti posrednikom, katerih storitve uporablja tretja stranka in s tem krši avtorske ali sorodne pravice.“
|
|
9. Recital 23 in the preamble to Directive 2004/48 provides:
|
Direktiva 2004/48
|
|
‘Without prejudice to any other measures, procedures and remedies available, rightholders should have the possibility of applying for an injunction against an intermediary whose services are being used by a third party to infringe the rightholder’s industrial property right. The conditions and procedures relating to such injunctions should be left to the national law of the Member States. As far as infringements of copyright and related rights are concerned, a comprehensive level of harmonisation is already provided for in Directive [2001/29]. Article 8(3) of Directive [2001/29] should therefore not be affected by this Directive.’
|
9. V uvodni izjavi 23 Direktive 2004/48 je navedeno:
|
|
10. Article 2(3) of Directive 2004/48 provides as follows:
|
„Brez poseganja v katere koli druge ukrepe, postopke in pravna sredstva morajo imeti imetniki pravice možnost vložitve zahtevka na opustitev dejanja proti posredniku, katerega storitve tretja stranka uporablja za kršitev pravice industrijske lastnine imetnika pravice. Pogoje in postopke v zvezi s takimi sodnimi odredbami je treba prepustiti nacionalni zakonodaji držav članic. Glede kršitev avtorske in sorodnih pravic je celovita raven uskladitve že dosežena v Direktivi 2001/29[…]. Zato ta direktiva ne bi smela vplivati na člen 8(3) Direktive 2001/29[…].“
|
|
‘This Directive shall not affect:
|
10. Člen 2(3) Direktive 2004/48 določa:
|
|
(a) the Community provisions governing the substantive law on intellectual property … or Directive [2000/31], in general, and Articles 12 to 15 of Directive [2000/31] in particular;
|
„Ta direktiva ne vpliva na:
|
|
…’
|
(a) določbe Skupnosti, ki urejajo materialno pravo intelektualne lastnine […] ali Direktivo 2000/31[…] na splošno in zlasti na člene 12 do 15 Direktive 2000/31[…];
|
|
11. Article 3 of Directive 2004/48 provides:
|
[…]“
|
|
‘1. Member States shall provide for the measures, procedures and remedies necessary to ensure the enforcement of the intellectual property rights covered by this Directive. Those measures, procedures and remedies shall be fair and equitable and shall not be unnecessarily complicated or costly, or entail unreasonable time-limits or unwarranted delays.
|
11. Člen 3 Direktive 2004/48 določa:
|
|
2. Those measures, procedures and remedies shall also be effective, proportionate and dissuasive and shall be applied in such a manner as to avoid the creation of barriers to legitimate trade and to provide for safeguards against their abuse.’
|
„1. Države članice predvidijo ukrepe, postopke in pravna sredstva, potrebne za zagotovitev uveljavitve pravic intelektualne lastnine, ki jih zajema ta direktiva. Ti ukrepi, postopki in pravna sredstva so pošteni in pravični in niso po nepotrebnem zapleteni ali dragi in ne vsebujejo nerazumnih časovnih rokov ali neupravičenih zamud.
|
|
12. Article 11 of Directive 2004/48 states:
|
2. Ti ukrepi, postopki in pravna sredstva so tudi dejanski, sorazmerni in odvračilni in se uporabljajo na tak način, da se izogibajo ustvarjanju ovir za zakonito trgovino in zagotavljajo zaščito pred zlorabo.“
|
|
‘Member States shall ensure that, where a judicial decision is taken finding an infringement of an intellectual property right, the judicial authorities may issue against the infringer an injunction aimed at prohibiting the continuation of the infringement. Where provided for by national law, non-compliance with an injunction shall, where appropriate, be subject to a recurring penalty payment, with a view to ensuring compliance. Member States shall also ensure that rightholders are in a position to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right, without prejudice to Article 8(3) of Directive [2001/29].’
|
12. Člen 11 Direktive 2004/48 določa:
|
|
National law
|
„Države članice zagotovijo, da lahko sodni organi, kadar je sprejeta sodna odločba, s katero je ugotovljena kršitev pravice intelektualne lastnine, izdajo proti kršitelju sodno odredbo, namenjeno prepovedi nadaljevanja kršitve. Kadar je tako predvideno z nacionalno zakonodajo, se za neupoštevanje sodne prepovedi, kadar je to primerno, odredijo ponavljajoče se denarne kazni z namenom zagotavljanja upoštevanja prepovedi. Države članice zagotovijo tudi, da imajo imetniki pravic možnost vložitve zahteve za sodno odredbo proti posrednikom, katerih storitve uporablja tretja stranka za kršitev pravice intelektualne lastnine, brez poseganja v člen 8(3) Direktive 2001/29[…].“
|
|
13. Article 87(1), first and second subparagraphs, of the Law of 30 June 1994 on copyright and related rights ( Moniteur belge of 27 July 1994, p. 19297) states:
|
Nacionalno pravo
|
|
‘The President of the Tribunal de première instance (Court of First Instance) … shall determine the existence of any infringement of a copyright or related right and shall order that it be brought to an end.
|
13. Člen 87(1), prvi in drugi pododstavek, zakona z dne 30. junija 1994 o avtorski in sorodnih pravicah ( Moniteur belge z dne 27. julija 1994, str. 19297) določa:
|
|
He may also issue an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe a copyright or related right.’
|
„Predsednik sodišča prve stopnje […] ugotovi obstoj in odredi prenehanje vsakršne kršitve avtorske ali sorodne pravice.
|
|
14. Articles 18 and 21 of the Law of 11 March 2003 on certain legal aspects of information society services ( Moniteur belge of 17 March 2003, p. 12962) transpose Articles 12 and 15 of Directive 2000/31 into national law.
|
Lahko tudi izda odredbo o prenehanju kršitve zoper posrednike, katerih storitve uporablja tretja oseba za kršitev avtorske ali sorodne pravice.“
|
|
The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
|
14. Člena 12 in 15 Direktive 2000/31 sta bila v nacionalno pravo prenesena s členoma 18 in 21 zakona z dne 11. marca 2003 o nekaterih pravnih vidikih storitev informacijske družbe ( Moniteur belge z dne 17. marca 2003, str. 12962).
|
|
15. SABAM is a management company which represents authors, composers and editors of musical works in authorising the use of their copyright-protected works by third parties.
|
Spor o glavni stvari in vprašanja za predhodno odločanje
|
|
16. Scarlet is an internet service provider (‘ISP’) which provides its customers with access to the internet without offering other services such as downloading or file sharing.
|
15. SABAM je družba za upravljanje, ki zastopa avtorje, skladatelje in založnike glasbenih del tako, da izdaja dovoljenja za uporabo njihovih varovanih del s strani tretjih oseb.
|
|
17. In the course of 2004, SABAM concluded that internet users using Scarlet’s services were downloading works in SABAM’s catalogue from the internet, without authorisation and without paying royalties, by means of peer-to-peer networks, which constitute a transparent method of file sharing which is independent, decentralised and features advanced search and download functions.
|
16. Družba Scarlet je ponudnik internetnega dostopa (v nadaljevanju: PID), ki uporabnikom zagotavlja dostop do interneta, ne da bi ponujala druge storitve, kot sta nalaganje in medsebojna izmenjava datotek.
|
|
18. On 24 June 2004, SABAM accordingly brought interlocutory proceedings against Scarlet before the President of the Tribunal de première instance, Brussels, claiming that that company was the best placed, as an ISP, to take measures to bring to an end copyright infringements committed by its customers.
|
17. Družba SABAM je leta 2004 ugotovila, da internetni uporabniki, ki uporabljajo storitve družbe Scarlet, s pomočjo omrežij „peer-to-peer“, ki so pregledno, neodvisno, decentralizirano sredstvo za izmenjavo datotek, opremljeno z naprednimi orodji za iskanje in nalaganje, prek interneta nalagajo dela, ki so navedena v njenem katalogu, ne da bi za to pridobili dovoljenje in plačali nadomestila.
|
|
19. SABAM sought, first, a declaration that the copyright in musical works contained in its repertoire had been infringed, in particular the right of reproduction and the right of communication to the public, because of the unauthorised sharing of electronic music files by means of peer-to-peer software, those infringements being committed through the use of Scarlet’s services.
|
18. Družba SABAM je zato 24. junija 2004 vložila tožbo proti družbi Scarlet pri predsedniku sodišča prve stopnje v Bruslju in navedla, da je ta družba kot PID v najboljšem položaju za sprejetje ukrepov, s katerimi bi se doseglo, da njene stranke prenehajo kršiti avtorske pravice.
|
|
20. SABAM also sought an order requiring Scarlet to bring such infringements to an end by blocking, or making it impossible for its customers to send or receive in any way, files containing a musical work using peer-to-peer software without the permission of the rightholders, on pain of a periodic penalty. Lastly, SABAM requested that Scarlet provide it with details of the measures that it would be applying in order to comply with the judgment to be given, on pain of a periodic penalty.
|
19. Družba SABAM je najprej predlagala, naj se ugotovi obstoj kršitev avtorske pravice v zvezi z glasbenimi deli iz njenega repertoarja, natančneje, kršitev pravice reproduciranja in pravice priobčitve javnosti, zaradi nepooblaščene izmenjave elektronskih glasbenih datotek s programsko opremo „peer-to-peer“, pri čemer se te pravice kršijo ob uporabi storitev družbe Scarlet.
|
|
21. By judgment of 26 November 2004, the President of the Tribunal de première instance, Brussels, found that copyright had been infringed, as claimed by SABAM, but, prior to ruling on the application for cessation, appointed an expert to investigate whether the technical solutions proposed by SABAM were technically feasible, whether they would make it possible to filter out only unlawful file sharing, and whether there were other ways of monitoring the use of peer-to-peer software, and to determine the cost of the measures envisaged.
|
20. Nato je predlagala, naj se družbi Scarlet naloži, da svojim strankam onemogoči, da brez dovoljenja imetnikov pravic s programsko opremo „peer-to-peer“ kakor koli pošiljajo ali sprejemajo datoteke z glasbenimi deli, in tako prepreči kršitve teh pravic, sicer naj se zadevni družbi naloži periodična denarna kazen. Družba SABAM je nazadnje še zahtevala, naj ji družba Scarlet sporoči opis ukrepov, ki jih bo sprejela za izvršitev sodbe, ki bo izdana v tej zadevi, sicer naj se ji naloži periodična denarna kazen.
|
|
22. In his report, the appointed expert concluded that, despite numerous technical obstacles, the feasibility of filtering and blocking the unlawful sharing of electronic files could not be entirely ruled out.
|
21. Predsednik tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles je s sodbo z dne 26. novembra 2004 ugotovil obstoj kršitve avtorske pravice, na katero se je sklicevala družba SABAM, vendar pa je pred odločanjem o zahtevku za prenehanje kršitve imenoval izvedenca, da bi preučil, ali so tehnične rešitve, ki jih je predlagala družba SABAM, tehnično izvedljive, ali omogočajo filtriranje samo nezakonitih izmenjav elektronskih datotek in ali obstajajo druga sredstva, s katerimi bi se lahko nadzorovala uporaba programske opreme „peer-to-peer“, ter da bi določil stroške predvidenih sredstev.
|
|
23. By judgment of 29 June 2007, the President of the Tribunal de première instance, Brussels, accordingly ordered Scarlet to bring to an end the copyright infringements established in the judgment of 26 November 2004 by making it impossible for its customers to send or receive in any way files containing a musical work in SABAM’s repertoire by means of peer-to-peer software, on pain of a periodic penalty.
|
22. Ta izvedenec je v poročilu navedel, da kljub številnim tehničnim oviram ni povsem izključena izvedljivost filtriranja in blokiranja nezakonitih izmenjav elektronskih datotek.
|
|
24. Scarlet appealed against that decision to the referring court, claiming, first, that it was impossible for it to comply with that injunction since the effectiveness and permanence of filtering and blocking systems had not been proved and that the installation of the equipment for so doing was faced with numerous practical obstacles, such as problems with the network capacity and the impact on the network. Moreover, any attempt to block the files concerned was, it argued, doomed to fail in the very short term because there were at that time several peer-to-peer software products which made it impossible for third parties to check their content.
|
23. Predsednik tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles je zato s sodbo z dne 29. junija 2007 družbi Scarlet naložil, naj zagotovi prenehanje kršitve avtorske pravice, ugotovljene v sodbi z dne 26. novembra 2004, tako, da svojim strankam onemogoči, da z uporabo programske opreme „peer‑to‑peer“ kakor koli pošiljajo ali sprejemajo elektronske datoteke z glasbenimi deli iz repertoarja družbe SABAM, sicer se ji naloži periodična denarna kazen.
|
|
25. Scarlet also claimed that that injunction was contrary to Article 21 of the Law of 11 March 2003 on certain legal aspects of information society services, which transposes Article 15 of Directive 2000/31 into national law, because it would impose on Scarlet, de facto , a general obligation to monitor communications on its network, inasmuch as any system for blocking or filtering peer-to-peer traffic would necessarily require general surveillance of all the communications passing through its network.
|
24. Družba Scarlet je pri predložitvenem sodišču vložila pritožbo zoper to sodbo, v kateri je najprej navedla, da ne more izvršiti te odredbe, ker učinkovitost in trajnost sistemov blokade in filtriranja ni dokazana in ker uvedba takih sredstev naleti na številne praktične ovire, kot so težave z zmogljivostjo omrežja in vpliv na omrežje. Poleg tega naj bi bil vsak poskus blokade zadevnih datotek obsojen na neuspeh v zelo kratkem času, saj naj bi že obstajalo več vrst programske opreme „peer-to-peer“, ki tretjim osebam onemogoča preverjanje njihove vsebine.
|
|
26. Lastly, Scarlet considered that the installation of a filtering system would be in breach of the provisions of European Union law on the protection of personal data and the secrecy of communications, since such filtering involves the processing of IP addresses, which are personal data.
|
25. Dalje, družba Scarlet je navedla, da ta odredba ni v skladu s členom 21 zakona z dne 11. marca 2003 o nekaterih pravnih vidikih storitev informacijske družbe, s katerim je bil v nacionalno pravo prenesen člen 15 Direktive 2000/31, kajti s to odredbo ji je dejansko naložena splošna obveznost nadzora komunikacij na njenem omrežju, saj vsako sredstvo blokiranja ali filtriranja prometa „peer-to-peer“ nujno predpostavlja splošen nadzor vseh komunikacij prek tega omrežja.
|
|
27. In that context, the referring court took the view that, before ascertaining whether a mechanism for filtering and blocking peer-to-peer files existed and could be effective, it had to be satisfied that the obligations liable to be imposed on Scarlet were in accordance with European Union law.
|
26. Nazadnje, družba Scarlet je menila, da vzpostavitev sistema filtriranja posega v določbe prava Unije o varstvu osebnih podatkov in tajnosti komunikacij, saj tako filtriranje vključuje obdelavo IP-naslovov, ti pa so osebni podatki.
|
|
28. In those circumstances, the cour d’appel de Bruxelles decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
|
27. V teh okoliščinah je predložitveno sodišče menilo, da se je treba, preden se preveri, ali obstaja mehanizem filtriranja in blokiranja datotek „peer‑to-peer“ in ali je tak sistem lahko učinkovit, prepričati, ali so obveznosti, ki bi utegnile biti naložene družbi Scarlet, v skladu s pravom Unije.
|
|
‘(1) Do Directives 2001/29 and 2004/48, in conjunction with Directives 95/46, 2000/31 and 2002/58, construed in particular in the light of Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, permit Member States to authorise a national court, before which substantive proceedings have been brought and on the basis merely of a statutory provision stating that: ‘They [the national courts] may also issue an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe a copyright or related right’, to order an [ISP] to install, for all its customers, in abstracto and as a preventive measure, exclusively at the cost of that ISP and for an unlimited period, a system for filtering all electronic communications, both incoming and outgoing, passing via its services, in particular those involving the use of peer-to-peer software, in order to identify on its network the movement of electronic files containing a musical, cinematographic or audio-visual work in respect of which the applicant claims to hold rights, and subsequently to block the transfer of such files, either at the point at which they are requested or at which they are sent?
|
28. V teh okoliščinah je cour d’appel de Bruxelles prekinilo odločanje in Sodišču v predhodno odločanje postavilo ti vprašanji:
|
|
(2) If the answer to the [first] question … is in the affirmative, do those directives require a national court, called upon to give a ruling on an application for an injunction against an intermediary whose services are used by a third party to infringe a copyright, to apply the principle of proportionality when deciding on the effectiveness and dissuasive effect of the measure sought?’
|
„1. Ali direktivi 2001/29 in 2004/48 v povezavi z direktivami 95/46, 2000/31 in 2002/58, razlagani zlasti glede na člena 8 in 10 Evropske konvencije o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin, dopuščata državam članicam, da nacionalnemu sodišču, ki odloča v postopku v glavni stvari na podlagi ene same zakonske določbe, ki določa: ‚[Nacionalno sodišče] lahko izda odredbo o prenehanju kršitev tudi zoper posrednike, katerih storitve uporablja tretja oseba za kršitev avtorske ali sorodne pravice‘, dovolijo, da PID odredi, da za vse svoje stranke in abstracto in preventivno ter na izključne stroške tega PID in časovno neomejeno vzpostavi sistem filtriranja vseh vstopnih in izstopnih elektronskih komunikacij, ki se prenašajo z njenimi storitvami, zlasti z uporabo programske opreme ‚peer-to-peer‘, da bi na svojem omrežju ugotovil pretok elektronskih datotek, ki vsebujejo glasbena, kinematografska ali avdiovizualna dela, o katerih tožeča stranka trdi, da ima v zvezi z njimi pravice, in nato blokiral prenos teh datotek bodisi v fazi naročanja teh datotek bodisi v fazi njihovega pošiljanja?
|
|
Consideration of the questions referred
|
2. Ali ob pritrdilnem odgovoru na prvo vprašanje ti direktivi nacionalnemu sodišču, ki odloča o predlogu za sprejetje odredbe zoper posrednika, katerega storitve uporablja tretja oseba za kršitev avtorske pravice, nalagata, da uporabi načelo sorazmernosti, kadar mora odločiti o učinkovitosti in odvračilnem učinku predlaganega ukrepa?“
|
|
29. By its questions, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Directives 2000/31, 2001/29, 2004/48, 95/46 and 2002/58, read together and construed in the light of the requirements stemming from the protection of the applicable fundamental rights, must be interpreted as precluding an injunction imposed on an ISP to introduce a system for filtering
|
Vprašanja za predhodno odločanje
|
|
– all electronic communications passing via its services, in particular those involving the use of peer-to-peer software;
|
29. Predložitveno sodišče s svojima vprašanjema v bistvu sprašuje, ali je treba direktive 2000/31, 2001/29, 2004/48, 95/46 in 2002/58, razlagane ob upoštevanju zahtev, ki izhajajo iz varstva temeljnih pravic, ki se uporabijo, razlagati tako, da nasprotujejo temu, da se PID odredi vzpostavitev sistema filtriranja
|
|
– which applies indiscriminately to all its customers;
|
– vseh elektronskih komunikacij, ki se prenašajo z njegovimi storitvami, zlasti z uporabo programske opreme „peer-to-peer“;
|
|
– as a preventive measure;
|
– ki se uporabi brez razlikovanja za vse njegove stranke;
|
|
– exclusively at its expense; and
|
– preventivno;
|
|
– for an unlimited period,
|
– na njegove izključne stroške in
|
|
which is capable of identifying on that provider’s network the movement of electronic files containing a musical, cinematographic or audio-visual work in respect of which the applicant claims to hold intellectual property rights, with a view to blocking the transfer of files the sharing of which infringes copyright (‘the contested filtering system’).
|
– časovno neomejeno,
|
|
30. In that regard, it should first be recalled that, under Article 8(3) of Directive 2001/29 and the third sentence of Article 11 of Directive 2004/48, holders of intellectual property rights may apply for an injunction against intermediaries, such as ISPs, whose services are being used by a third party to infringe their rights.
|
s katerim je mogoče v omrežju tega ponudnika ugotoviti pretok elektronskih datotek, ki vsebujejo glasbena, kinematografska ali avdiovizualna dela, o katerih tožeča stranka trdi, da ima v zvezi z njimi pravice, z namenom, da bi se blokiral prenos datotek, katerih izmenjava pomeni kršitev avtorske pravice (v nadaljevanju: sporni sistem za filtriranje).
|
|
31. Next, it follows from the Court’s case-law that the jurisdiction conferred on national courts, in accordance with those provisions, must allow them to order those intermediaries to take measures aimed not only at bringing to an end infringements already committed against intellectual-property rights using their information-society services, but also at preventing further infringements (see, to that effect, Case C‑324/09 L’Oréal and Others [2011] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 131).
|
30. V zvezi s tem je treba najprej spomniti, da lahko imetniki pravic intelektualne lastnine v skladu s členom 8(3) Direktive 2001/29 in členom 11, tretji stavek, Direktive 2004/48 zahtevajo sodno odredbo proti posrednikom, kot so PID, katerih storitve uporabljajo tretje stranke za kršitev njihovih pravic.
|
|
32. Lastly, it follows from that same case-law that the rules for the operation of the injunctions for which the Member States must provide under Article 8(3) of Directive 2001/29 and the third sentence of Article 11 of Directive 2004/48, such as those relating to the conditions to be met and to the procedure to be followed, are a matter for national law (see, mutatis mutandis , L’Oréal and Others , paragraph 135).
|
31. Dalje, iz sodne prakse Sodišča izhaja, da mora pristojnost, ki je v skladu s temi določbami podeljena nacionalnim sodiščem, tem sodiščem omogočiti, da tem posrednikom naložijo sprejetje ukrepov, ki se nanašajo ne le na prenehanje kršitev pravic intelektualne lastnine, ki so že bile storjene s pomočjo njihovih storitev informacijske družbe, temveč tudi na preprečevanje nadaljnjih kršitev (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 12. julija 2011 v zadevi L’Oréal in drugi, C‑324/09, še neobjavljena v ZOdl., točka 131).
|
|
33. That being so, those national rules, and likewise their application by the national courts, must observe the limitations arising from Directives 2001/29 and 2004/48 and from the sources of law to which those directives refer (see, to that effect, L’Oréal and Others , paragraph 138).
|
32. Nazadnje, iz navedene sodne prakse izhaja, da spadajo podrobna pravila o sodnih odredbah, ki jih morajo države članice sprejeti na podlagi navedenih členov 8(3) in 11, tretji stavek, kot so podrobna pravila o pogojih, ki morajo biti izpolnjeni, in o postopku, ki ga je treba uporabiti, v nacionalno pravo (glej, mutatis mutandis , zgoraj navedeno sodbo L’Oréal in drugi, točka 135).
|
|
34. Thus, in accordance with recital 16 in the preamble to Directive 2001/29 and Article 2(3)(a) of Directive 2004/48, those rules laid down by the Member States may not affect the provisions of Directive 2000/31 and, more specifically, Articles 12 to 15 thereof.
|
33. Ta nacionalna pravila in njihova uporaba s strani nacionalnih sodišč pa morajo biti skladni z omejitvami iz direktiv 2001/29 in 2004/48 ter pravnih virov, na katere ti direktivi napotujeta (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo L’Oréal in drugi, točka 138).
|
|
35. Consequently, those rules must, in particular, respect Article 15(1) of Directive 2000/31, which prohibits national authorities from adopting measures which would require an ISP to carry out general monitoring of the information that it transmits on its network.
|
34. Tako v skladu z uvodno izjavo 16 Direktive 2001/29 in členom 2(3)(a) Direktive 2004/48 navedena pravila, ki so jih določile države članice, ne morejo vplivati na določbe Direktive 2000/31 in, natančneje, na njuna člena 12 in 15.
|
|
36. In that regard, the Court has already ruled that that prohibition applies in particular to national measures which would require an intermediary provider, such as an ISP, to actively monitor all the data of each of its customers in order to prevent any future infringement of intellectual-property rights. Furthermore, such a general monitoring obligation would be incompatible with Article 3 of Directive 2004/48, which states that the measures referred to by the directive must be fair and proportionate and must not be excessively costly (see L’Oréal and Others , paragraph 139).
|
35. Zato morajo ta pravila zlasti spoštovati člen 15(1) Direktive 2000/31, ki nacionalnim organom prepoveduje sprejetje ukrepov, s katerimi bi bila PID naložena obveznost splošnega nadzora podatkov, ki jih prenaša na svojem omrežju.
|
|
37. In those circumstances, it is necessary to examine whether the injunction at issue in the main proceedings, which would require the ISP to install the contested filtering system, would oblige it, as part of that system, to actively monitor all the data of each of its customers in order to prevent any future infringement of intellectual-property rights.
|
36. V zvezi s tem je Sodišče že presodilo, da se taka prepoved nanaša med drugim na nacionalne ukrepe, s katerimi bi bilo posrednim ponudnikom, kot je PID, naloženo, da dejavno nadzirajo vse podatke vseh strank, da bi se preprečila kakršna koli prihodnja kršitev pravic intelektualne lastnine. Poleg tega taka obveznost splošnega nadzora ne bi bila skladna s členom 3 Direktive 2004/48, ki določa, da so ukrepi, na katere se nanaša ta direktiva, pravični in sorazmerni ter da niso pretirano dragi (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo L’Oréal in drugi, točka 139).
|
|
38. In that regard, it is common ground that implementation of that filtering system would require
|
37. V teh okoliščinah je treba preučiti, ali odredba iz postopka v glavni stvari, s katero je bilo PID naloženo, da vzpostavi sporni sistem za filtriranje, temu PID nalaga, da v okviru tega sistema dejavno nadzira vse podatke vseh strank, da bi se preprečila kakršna koli prihodnja kršitev pravic intelektualne lastnine.
|
|
– first, that the ISP identify, within all of the electronic communications of all its customers, the files relating to peer-to-peer traffic;
|
38. V zvezi s tem je nesporno, da bi vzpostavitev sistema za filtriranje pomenila
|
|
– secondly, that it identify, within that traffic, the files containing works in respect of which holders of intellectual-property rights claim to hold rights;
|
– da PID, prvič, med vsemi elektronskimi komunikacijami vseh svojih strank identificira datoteke, ki spadajo v „peer-to-peer“ promet;
|
|
– thirdly, that it determine which of those files are being shared unlawfully; and
|
– da, drugič, v okviru tega prometa identificira datoteke, ki vsebujejo dela, o katerih imetniki pravic intelektualne lastnine trdijo, da imajo v zvezi z njimi pravice;
|
|
– fourthly, that it block file sharing that it considers to be unlawful.
|
– da, tretjič, določi, katere od teh datotek se izmenjujejo nezakonito in
|
|
39. Preventive monitoring of this kind would thus require active observation of all electronic communications conducted on the network of the ISP concerned and, consequently, would encompass all information to be transmitted and all customers using that network.
|
– da, četrtič, blokira izmenjave datotek, ki jih je opredelil kot nezakonite.
|
|
40. In the light of the foregoing, it must be held that the injunction imposed on the ISP concerned requiring it to install the contested filtering system would oblige it to actively monitor all the data relating to each of its customers in order to prevent any future infringement of intellectual-property rights. It follows that that injunction would require the ISP to carry out general monitoring, something which is prohibited by Article 15(1) of Directive 2000/31.
|
39. Tako bi tak preventiven nadzor terjal dejavno opazovanje vseh elektronskih komunikacij, ki potekajo prek omrežja zadevnega PID in bi torej zajemal vse informacije, ki se prenešajo, in vse stranke, ki uporabljajo to omrežje.
|
|
41. In order to assess whether that injunction is consistent with European Union law, account must also be taken of the requirements that stem from the protection of the applicable fundamental rights, such as those mentioned by the referring court.
|
40. Glede na navedeno je treba ugotoviti, da odredba, s katero je bilo zadevnemu PID naloženo, da vzpostavi sporni sistem za filtriranje, temu PID nalaga, da dejavno nadzira vse podatke, ki se nanašajo na vse njegove stranke, da bi se preprečila kakršna koli prihodnja kršitev pravic intelektualne lastnine. Iz tega izhaja, da bi bilo z navedeno odredbo temu PID naloženo, da zagotovi splošen nadzor, ki je na podlagi člena 15(1) Direktive 2000/31 prepovedan.
|
|
42. In that regard, it should be recalled that the injunction at issue in the main proceedings pursues the aim of ensuring the protection of copyright, which is an intellectual-property right, which may be infringed by the nature and content of certain electronic communications conducted through the network of the ISP concerned.
|
41. Za presojo skladnosti te odredbe s pravom Unije je treba poleg tega upoštevati zahteve, ki izhajajo iz varstva temeljnih pravic, ki se uporabijo, kot so te, ki jih je navedlo predložitveno sodišče.
|
|
43. The protection of the right to intellectual property is indeed enshrined in Article 17(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’). There is, however, nothing whatsoever in the wording of that provision or in the Court’s case-law to suggest that that right is inviolable and must for that reason be absolutely protected.
|
42. V zvezi s tem je treba spomniti, da je namen odredbe iz postopka v glavni stvari zagotovitev varstva avtorskih pravic, ki spadajo med pravice intelektualne lastnine in ki bi utegnile biti zaradi narave in vsebine nekaterih elektronskih komunikacij, ki potekajo prek omrežja zadevnega PID, kršene.
|
|
44. As paragraphs 62 to 68 of the judgment in Case C‑275/06 Promusicae [2008] ECR I‑271 make clear, the protection of the fundamental right to property, which includes the rights linked to intellectual property, must be balanced against the protection of other fundamental rights.
|
43. Nedvomno je varstvo pravic intelektualne lastnine določeno v členu 17(2) Listine Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah (v nadaljevanju: listina). Iz te določbe niti iz sodne prakse Sodišča pa ne izhaja, da je ta pravica nedotakljiva in da mora biti zato njeno varstvo absolutno.
|
|
45. More specifically, it follows from paragraph 68 of that judgment that, in the context of measures adopted to protect copyright holders, national authorities and courts must strike a fair balance between the protection of copyright and the protection of the fundamental rights of individuals who are affected by such measures.
|
44. Kot je namreč razvidno iz točk od 62 do 68 sodbe z dne 29. januarja 2008 v zadevi Promusicae (C‑275/06, ZOdl., str. I 271), je treba varstvo temeljne lastninske pravice, katere del so pravice intelektualne lastnine, uravnotežiti z varstvom drugih temeljnih pravic.
|
|
46. Accordingly, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, national authorities and courts must, in particular, strike a fair balance between the protection of the intellectual property right enjoyed by copyright holders and that of the freedom to conduct a business enjoyed by operators such as ISPs pursuant to Article 16 of the Charter.
|
45. Natančneje, iz točke 68 navedene sodbe izhaja, da so nacionalni organi in nacionalna sodišča pristojni, da v okviru ukrepov, ki so sprejeti za varstvo imetnikov avtorskih pravic, zagotovijo pravično ravnotežje med varstvom te pravice in varstvom temeljnih pravic oseb, na katere taki ukrepi vplivajo.
|
|
47. In the present case, the injunction requiring the installation of the contested filtering system involves monitoring all the electronic communications made through the network of the ISP concerned in the interests of those rightholders. Moreover, that monitoring has no limitation in time, is directed at all future infringements and is intended to protect not only existing works, but also future works that have not yet been created at the time when the system is introduced.
|
46. Tako morajo v okoliščinah, kot so te iz postopka v glavni stvari, nacionalni organi in nacionalna sodišča med drugim zagotoviti pravično ravnotežje med varstvom pravice intelektualne lastnine, do katerega so upravičeni imetniki avtorskih pravic, in varstvom svobode gospodarske pobude, do katerega so upravičeni gospodarski subjekti, kot so PID, na podlagi člena 16 listine.
|
|
48. Accordingly, such an injunction would result in a serious infringement of the freedom of the ISP concerned to conduct its business since it would require that ISP to install a complicated, costly, permanent computer system at its own expense, which would also be contrary to the conditions laid down in Article 3(1) of Directive 2004/48, which requires that measures to ensure the respect of intellectual-property rights should not be unnecessarily complicated or costly.
|
47. V obravnavanem primeru pa odreditev vzpostavitve spornega sistema za filtriranje vključuje opravljanje – v interesu teh imetnikov – nadzora vseh elektronskih komunikacij, ki potekajo prek omrežja zadevnega PID, pri čemer je ta nadzor poleg tega časovno neomejen, se nanaša na vse prihodnje kršitve in vključuje obveznost varstva ne le obstoječih del, temveč tudi prihodnjih, ki ob vzpostavitvi tega sistema še niso bila ustvarjena.
|
|
49. In those circumstances, it must be held that the injunction to install the contested filtering system is to be regarded as not respecting the requirement that a fair balance be struck between, on the one hand, the protection of the intellectual-property right enjoyed by copyright holders, and, on the other hand, that of the freedom to conduct business enjoyed by operators such as ISPs.
|
48. Tako bi taka odredba povzročila hudo kršitev svobode gospodarske pobude zadevnega PID, saj bi bila z njo naložena obveznost vzpostavitve zapletenega in dragega informacijskega sistema, ki bi bil vzpostavljen za stalno in na njegove lastne stroške, kar bi bilo poleg tega v nasprotju s pogoji, določenimi v členu 3(1) Direktive 2004/48, na podlagi katerega se zahteva, da ukrepi za zagotovitev spoštovanja pravic intelektualne lastnine niso nepotrebno zapleteni in dragi.
|
|
50. Moreover, the effects of that injunction would not be limited to the ISP concerned, as the contested filtering system may also infringe the fundamental rights of that ISP’s customers, namely their right to protection of their personal data and their freedom to receive or impart information, which are rights safeguarded by Articles 8 and 11 of the Charter respectively.
|
49. V teh okoliščinah je treba ugotoviti, da je treba šteti, da odreditev vzpostavitve spornega sistema za filtriranje ne izpolnjuje zahteve, da je treba zagotoviti pravično ravnotežje med varstvom pravice intelektualne lastnine, do katerega so upravičeni imetniki avtorskih pravic, in varstvom svobode gospodarske pobude, do katerega so upravičeni gospodarski subjekti, kot so PID.
|
|
51. It is common ground, first, that the injunction requiring installation of the contested filtering system would involve a systematic analysis of all content and the collection and identification of users’ IP addresses from which unlawful content on the network is sent. Those addresses are protected personal data because they allow those users to be precisely identified.
|
50. Poleg tega učinki navedene odredbe niso omejeni na zadevni PID, saj utegnejo biti s spornim sistemom za filtriranje kršene tudi temeljne pravice strank tega PID, in sicer njihova pravica do varstva osebnih podatkov ter svoboda sprejemanja in širjenja vesti, ki sta varovani na podlagi členov 8 in 11 listine.
|
|
52. Secondly, that injunction could potentially undermine freedom of information since that system might not distinguish adequately between unlawful content and lawful content, with the result that its introduction could lead to the blocking of lawful communications. Indeed, it is not contested that the reply to the question whether a transmission is lawful also depends on the application of statutory exceptions to copyright which vary from one Member State to another. Moreover, in some Member States certain works fall within the public domain or can be posted online free of charge by the authors concerned.
|
51. Po eni strani je namreč nesporno, da odreditev vzpostavitve spornega sistema za filtriranje vključuje sistematično analizo vseh vsebin in zbiranje ter identifikacijo IP-naslovov uporabnikov, ki pošiljajo nezakonite vsebine prek omrežja, ti naslovi pa so varovani osebni podatki, saj omogočajo natančno identifikacijo teh uporabnikov.
|
|
53. Consequently, it must be held that, in adopting the injunction requiring the ISP to install the contested filtering system, the national court concerned would not be respecting the requirement that a fair balance be struck between the right to intellectual property, o n the one hand, and the freedom to conduct business, the right to protection of personal data and the freedom to receive or impart information, on the other.
|
52. Po drugi strani pa bi bila z navedeno odredbo lahko kršena svoboda obveščanja, saj obstaja nevarnost, da ta sistem ne bi dovolj dobro razločeval nezakonitih vsebin od zakonitih, tako da bi njegova vzpostavitev lahko onemogočila prenašanje zakonitih vsebin. Ni namreč sporno, da je odgovor na vprašanje, ali je prenos zakonit, odvisen tudi od zakonskih omejitev avtorske pravice, ki se od države do države članice razlikujejo. Poleg tega so nekatera dela lahko v nekaterih članicah v prosti uporabi ali pa so jih zadevni avtorji neodplačno dali na razpolago na splet.
|
|
54. In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the questions submitted is that Directives 2000/31, 2001/29, 2004/48, 95/46 and 2002/58, read together and construed in the light of the requirements stemming from the protection of the applicable fundamental rights, must be interpreted as precluding an injunction made against an ISP which requires it to install the contested filtering system.
|
53. Zato je treba ugotoviti, da zadevno nacionalno sodišče s sprejetjem odredbe, s katero je bila PID naložena vzpostavitev spornega sistema za filtriranje, ni spoštovalo zahteve, da je treba zagotoviti pravično ravnotežje med pravico intelektualne lastnine na eni strani in pravico do varstva osebnih podatkov ter svobodo sprejemanja in širjenja vesti na drugi strani.
|
|
Costs
|
54. Glede na navedeno je treba na postavljeni vprašanji odgovoriti, da je treba direktive 2000/31, 2001/29, 2004/48, 95/46 in 2002/58, razlagane skupaj in ob upoštevanju zahtev, ki izhajajo iz varstva temeljnih pravic, ki se uporabijo, razlagati tako, da nasprotujejo temu, da se PID odredi vzpostavitev spornega sistema filtriranja.
|
|
55. Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.
|
Stroški
|
|
|
55. Ker je ta postopek za stranke v postopku v glavni stvari ena od stopenj v postopku pred predložitvenim sodiščem, to odloči o stroških. Stroški, priglašeni za predložitev stališč Sodišču, ki niso stroški omenjenih strank, se ne povrnejo.
|