Is there a EU copyright jurisprudence: an empirical study of the workings of the European Court of Justice

Favale, M., Kretschmer, M. and Torremans, P. (2016) Is there a EU copyright jurisprudence: an empirical study of the workings of the European Court of Justice. Modern Law Review, 79(1), pp. 31-75. (doi:10.1111/1468-2230.12166)

Full text not currently available from Enlighten.

Abstract

The Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) has been suspected of carrying out a harmonising agenda over and beyond the conventional law-interpreting function of the judiciary. This study aims to investigate empirically two theories in relation to the development of EU copyright law: (i) that the Court has failed to develop a coherent copyright jurisprudence (lacking domain expertise, copyright specific reasoning, and predictability); (ii) that the Court has pursued an activist, harmonising agenda (resorting to teleological interpretation of European law rather than – less discretionary – semantic and systematic legal approaches). We have collected two data sets relating to all ECJ copyright and database cases up to Svensson (February 2014): (1) Statistics about the allocation of cases to chambers, the composition of chambers, the Judge Rapporteur, and Advocate General (including coding of the professional background of the personnel); (2) Content analysis of argumentative patterns in the decisions themselves, using a qualitative coding technique. Studying the relationship between (1) and (2) allows us to identify links between certain Chambers/ Court members and legal approaches, over time, and by subject. These shed light on the internal workings of the court, and also enable us to explore theories about the nature of ECJ jurisprudence. The analysis shows that private law and in particular intellectual property law expertise is almost entirely missing from the Court. However, we find that the Court has developed a mechanism for enabling judicial learning through the systematic assignment of cases to certain Judges and AGs. We also find that the Court has developed a “fair balance” topos linked to Judge Malenovský (rapporteur on 24 out of 40 copyright cases) that does not predict an agenda of upward harmonisation, with about half of judgments narrowing rather than widening the scope of copyright protection.

Item Type:Articles
Status:Published
Refereed:Yes
Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID:Kretschmer, Professor Martin
Authors: Favale, M., Kretschmer, M., and Torremans, P.
College/School:College of Social Sciences > School of Law
Journal Name:Modern Law Review
Publisher:Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
ISSN:0026-7961
ISSN (Online):1468-2230
Related URLs:

University Staff: Request a correction | Enlighten Editors: Update this record