Advanced

ePhone och informationsföreläggande

Andersson, Jonas LU (2015) JURM01 20151
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Rättsläget kring implementeringen av IPRED-direktivet har varit osäkert och omtvistat. Förhållandet mellan upphovsrätt och integritet är invecklat och skyddet för de ekonomiska rättigheterna har varit i behov av förbättring samtidigt som att säkrandet av tryggheten för personlig information i ett växande informationssamhälle blivit allt större.

Genom domen i ePhone-målet har det fastslagits att den svenska implementeringen av IPRED-direktivet genom informationsföreläggandet ej strider mot de grundläggande fri- och rättigheterna. Detta ansåg även lagstiftaren vilket framgick i förarbetena till den svenska implementeringen. Domstolen har fastställt att tillämpningen av informationsföreläggande enligt 53 § URL genom sin... (More)
Rättsläget kring implementeringen av IPRED-direktivet har varit osäkert och omtvistat. Förhållandet mellan upphovsrätt och integritet är invecklat och skyddet för de ekonomiska rättigheterna har varit i behov av förbättring samtidigt som att säkrandet av tryggheten för personlig information i ett växande informationssamhälle blivit allt större.

Genom domen i ePhone-målet har det fastslagits att den svenska implementeringen av IPRED-direktivet genom informationsföreläggandet ej strider mot de grundläggande fri- och rättigheterna. Detta ansåg även lagstiftaren vilket framgick i förarbetena till den svenska implementeringen. Domstolen har fastställt att tillämpningen av informationsföreläggande enligt 53 § URL genom sin proportionalitetsbedömning avseende förhållandet mellan ingreppet på den personliga integriteten och upphovsrättens skydd, sett till omständigheterna i aktuellt fall, är förenligt med gällande EU-rätt. Vidare har det fastställts att det inte heller finns hinder för att uppgifterna från ett informationsföreläggande ges ut till andra än myndigheter. Eftersom IPRED-direktivet är ett minimidirektiv så saknas också en klar beskrivning för exakt hur nationell reglering skall se ut för att uppfylla kraven i direktiven. Rättsläget kring hur informationsföreläggandet nu kan tillämpas bör således ses som relativt klart även om området med största sannolikt även fortsatt kommer vara omtvistat eftersom det rör dels stora ekonomiska intressen samt har stor påverkan på den personliga integriteten och rätten till privatliv på internet.
Gränsdragningar för proportionalitetsbedömningen, bevisvärdering samt reglering om hur uppgifter lagras kan dock mycket väl se ut att bli föremål för ändring genom domstolsprövning eller ändring av lagstiftning som är under utredning i samband med ogiltigförklarandet av Datalagringsdirektivet.

Implementeringen av IPRED-direktivet samt domarna i Prumusicae. LSG och ePhone-målet har visat att inskränkningarna i den enskildes rätt till privatliv har varit stora och att fokus har varit att säkra rättigheterna för upphovsrättshavarna. Bestämmelser i LEK och PUL har genom det nya regelverket fått ge vika att skydda rättighetshavarnas intressen och även om det återkommande anges att balans och proportionalitet skall beaktas så står det enligt mig tydligt att upphovsrätten väger otroligt tungt på detta område genom den nu gällande regleringen. Beviskravet för att få till stånd ett informationsföreläggande bör idag ses som lågt och samtidigt som insyn och reglering gällande vad som sedan görs med uppgifterna som lämnats ut kan argumenteras vara bristfällig. (Less)
Abstract
The legal position regarding the implementation of the IPRED directive has been uncertain and controversial. The relationship between copyright and privacy is complex and protection of the economic rights has been in need of improvement, while the same thing can be argue for safeguarding of the security of personal information in the growing information society.

The ruling in the Ephone case has established that the Swedish implementation of the IPRED directive through information injunction does not violate fundamental rights and freedoms. This was also considered by the legislature as evidenced in the preparatory work for the Swedish implementation. The Court has ruled that the application of the information injunction under § 53 URL... (More)
The legal position regarding the implementation of the IPRED directive has been uncertain and controversial. The relationship between copyright and privacy is complex and protection of the economic rights has been in need of improvement, while the same thing can be argue for safeguarding of the security of personal information in the growing information society.

The ruling in the Ephone case has established that the Swedish implementation of the IPRED directive through information injunction does not violate fundamental rights and freedoms. This was also considered by the legislature as evidenced in the preparatory work for the Swedish implementation. The Court has ruled that the application of the information injunction under § 53 URL through its proportionality assessment of the relationship between the effect on privacy and copyright protection, in terms of the circumstances of the current case, is compatible with existing EU law. Furthermore, it has been determined that there are likewise no obstacles to release data from an information injunction issued to other than the authorities. Since the IPRED directive is a minimum directive there is no detailed description to exactly how national rules should be formulated to meet the requirements of the directive. The legal position regarding how information injunctions can be used should now be seen as rather clear, even if the legal area as a whole probably will remain controversial since it deals with great economic interests and has big impact on the personal integrity and the right to privacy. Distinctions for the proportionality assessment, evaluation of evidence and the regulation of how data is stored may well appear to be subject to amendment by the courts or amendment of laws that are under investigation in connection with the annulment of the Data Retention Directive.

The implementation of the IPRED directive, the judgment in Prumusicae and Ephone case has shown that the restrictions on the individual's right to privacy has been severe and that the focus has been to secure the interests of right holders. Sections of LEK and PUL, through the new regulatory framework, has been forced to give way to protect the interests of rightholders and although it constantly states that balance and proportionality should be taken into consideration, it is in my view clear that copyright weighs really heavy in this area with the current regulation. The valuation of legal proof in order to get an information injunction should now be regarded as low, at the same time the level of transparency and regulation regarding what then is done with the information released should also be considered as low. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Andersson, Jonas LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
ePhone and the information injunction
course
JURM01 20151
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
EU-rätt
language
Swedish
id
7359416
date added to LUP
2015-06-16 17:00:29
date last changed
2015-06-18 14:04:28
@misc{7359416,
  abstract     = {The legal position regarding the implementation of the IPRED directive has been uncertain and controversial. The relationship between copyright and privacy is complex and protection of the economic rights has been in need of improvement, while the same thing can be argue for safeguarding of the security of personal information in the growing information society.

The ruling in the Ephone case has established that the Swedish implementation of the IPRED directive through information injunction does not violate fundamental rights and freedoms. This was also considered by the legislature as evidenced in the preparatory work for the Swedish implementation. The Court has ruled that the application of the information injunction under § 53 URL through its proportionality assessment of the relationship between the effect on privacy and copyright protection, in terms of the circumstances of the current case, is compatible with existing EU law. Furthermore, it has been determined that there are likewise no obstacles to release data from an information injunction issued to other than the authorities. Since the IPRED directive is a minimum directive there is no detailed description to exactly how national rules should be formulated to meet the requirements of the directive. The legal position regarding how information injunctions can be used should now be seen as rather clear, even if the legal area as a whole probably will remain controversial since it deals with great economic interests and has big impact on the personal integrity and the right to privacy. Distinctions for the proportionality assessment, evaluation of evidence and the regulation of how data is stored may well appear to be subject to amendment by the courts or amendment of laws that are under investigation in connection with the annulment of the Data Retention Directive.

The implementation of the IPRED directive, the judgment in Prumusicae and Ephone case has shown that the restrictions on the individual's right to privacy has been severe and that the focus has been to secure the interests of right holders. Sections of LEK and PUL, through the new regulatory framework, has been forced to give way to protect the interests of rightholders and although it constantly states that balance and proportionality should be taken into consideration, it is in my view clear that copyright weighs really heavy in this area with the current regulation. The valuation of legal proof in order to get an information injunction should now be regarded as low, at the same time the level of transparency and regulation regarding what then is done with the information released should also be considered as low.},
  author       = {Andersson, Jonas},
  keyword      = {EU-rätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {ePhone och informationsföreläggande},
  year         = {2015},
}