98534251 emi v data protection commissioner

8/12/2019 98534251 EMI v Data Protection Commissioner

1/26

The High CourtCommercial

Judicial Review2012/167 JR

Between

EMI Records (Ireland) LimitedSony Music Entertainment Ireland Limited

Universal Music (Ireland) Limited andWarner Music Ireland Limited

applicants

and

The ata !rotection Commissionerrespondent

and

Eircom "lcnotice party

#udgment o$ Mr #ustice Charleton delivered on the %&thday o$ #une %'%

' On Sunday 28 arc! 2010 all cloc"s in #reland and around $urope went%orward one !our at 01&00 !ours %or summer time& On Sunday '1 Octo(er 2010 allcloc"s in #reland and $urope went (ac" one !our at 02&00 !ours %or winter time&$ircom plc) t!e notice party and a ma*or telecommunications and internet servicecompany) i+nored t!e winter time c!an+e& ,!at piece o% indolence led to t!is case&

-or a(out t!e previous %our mont!s) %rom .u+ust 2010) $ircom !ad (eenoperatin+ a sc!eme under a settlement in a prior case w!ere(y t!e plainti%%s in t!iscase) !erea%ter re%erred to as t!e recordin+ companies) were detectin+ on t!einternet t!ose w!o were uploadin+ t!eir copyri+!t in music and video t!ey t!enpassed on in%ormation consistin+ only o% copyri+!t title) time and temporary #address to $ircom& ,!at company would t!en write to t!eir su(scri(ers and remindt!em t!at under t!e $ircomsu(scri(er contract t!ey !ad a+reed not to use internetaccess to in%rin+e copyri+!t& .s was well pu(licised a%ter liti+ation to (e s!ortly

re%erred to) a%ter t!ree suc! in%rin+ements t!e su(scri(er would lose a wee" o%internet access and) a%ter %our) internet service %rom $ircom would (e wit!drawnalto+et!er& ,!is would not stop a su(scri(er see"in+ service %rom anot!er internetservice provider) o% w!ic! t!ere are more t!an a doen in t!e State& Suc!in%ormation as to w!o mi+!t (e deprived o% internet service (y any internet serviceprovider is not put on any national re+ister nor is t!ere any e3uivalent collectiveinternet service provider data(ase&

% #nternet rotocol 45# addresses are %urnis!ed in t!eir millions (y a centrala+ency called Rseau9 # $uropens 45R#$) an or+anisation (ased in aris) tointernet service providers& On su(scri(in+ %or internet service) a customer +ets arouter (o9 %rom a provider and t!is !as a uni3ue num(er "nown only to t!e partiesto t!at contract& :ay (y day) providers assi+n # num(ers to t!eir su(scri(ers and

t!ese typically c!an+e every 2; !ours& ,!e Court was told t!at some lar+ecompanies li"e to !ave a more lastin+ # address) (ut t!ere is no evidence o% t!at

1


2/26

!ere&

recordin+ companies and pursuant to t!e a+reement (etween t!e parties) t!esu(scri(er is identi%ied (y $ircom and is written to& .t no sta+e do t!e recordin+companies "now to w!om t!at # address was assi+ned on any particular day andat no sta+e do t!ey see" to +ain t!at in%ormation %rom $ircom& Rat!er) any stept!at is t!erea%ter ta"en remains con%ined to t!e privacy o% t!e internet serviceprovider and su(scri(er contract&

*

Issues

%' ,!ere are t!ree ar+ua(le issues in t!is *udicial review& -irst) is *udicial reviewavaila(le to t!e recordin+ companies notwit!standin+ t!at a statutory appeal isopen to $ircom a+ainst t!is decision o% t!e :ata rotection Commissioner? Second)!ave reasons (een +iven in t!e notice? ,!ird) is t!e notice incorrect in law or is it)instead) issued under an error o% law t!at is in e9cess o% *urisdiction?

% . complicatin+ issue in t!is *udicial review) w!ic! would ordinarily (e asimpli%yin+ %actor) is t!at t!e su(*ect matter o% t!e notice was dealt wit! in aprevious *ud+ment o% t!e Court) namely@ EMI Records (Ireland) ltd v Eircom LtdA2010 ; #R ';=& ,!e :ata rotection Commissioner ma"es a num(er o% points inar+ument& #n respect o% t!e earlier *ud+ment) !e says t!at !e was not present) and

!e was not (ecause !e declined to participate citin+ cost as t!e %actor !e says t!at!is a(sence %rom t!e case was not !is %ault !e says t!at t!e *ud+ment does not(ind !im !e says t!at t!e Court was wron+ in t!e *ud+ment in w!ic! !e dei+nednot to participate !e ar+ues t!at t!e law !as c!an+ed since t!at decision wasdelivered !e says !e !as +iven reasons %or !is decision in t!e notice !e says t!at i%!e did not) t!e reasons were o(vious !e says t!at people s!ould come and tal" to!im and !e says t!at !e is not o(li+ed to +ive advice to t!ose w!o mi+!t come andtal" to !im&

%% ,!e Court +ave t!e recordin+ companies) $ircom and t!e :ata rotectionCommissioner t!e option o% statin+ 3uestions in t!is case to t!e Court o% Justice o%t!e $uropean nion& .ll declined& ,!is *ud+ment is su(*ect to an appeal to t!eSupreme Court& ,!e Court is entitled to stay any order t!at can (e stayed to allow

any party to e9ercise t!e option o% appeal&

2


3/26

History

*' #n 200D) Eelly J +ranted t!e recordin+ companies a num(er o% disclosure ordersa+ainst $ircom& ,!ese related to # addresses o% t!e in%rin+ers o% t!eir copyri+!t&

roceedin+s were initiated a+ainst some o% t!ose in%rin+ers& ,!e practice proved to(e %utile in terms o% +eneral impact on t!e level o% in%rin+ement since eac! partywas entitled to costs as in a t!ird party discovery) t!e level o% costs was completelyout o% proportion& ,!e Fi+! Court later so !eld& #n 2008 t!e recordin+ companiestoo" a case a+ainst $ircom see"in+ in*unctive relie% in part motivated (y concernsas to w!et!er a company could use a tec!nical solution to (loc" or divert orinterrupt internet users w!o were actin+ in (reac! o% copyri+!t& :urin+ t!e courseo% t!at !earin+ ro% Geonard Eleinroc") one o% t!e %ounders o% t!e internet) +aveevidence on (e!al% o% t!e recordin+ companies& .t t!e conclusion o% !is evidence)t!e parties ad*ourned and returned wit! a settlement to t!e Court& ,!at settlementinvolved w!at !as (een termed t!e +raduated response protocol& ,!at protocol was%iled in Court on 2= January 200=& #t !as since (een altered into t!e %orm previouslydescri(ed !erein& art o% t!e settlement terms was t!at $ircom would not oppose

an application to (loc" access to ,!e irate Bay we(site t!rou+! w!ic! muc! o% t!epeertopeer downloadin+ w!ic! in%rin+ed copyri+!t was %acilitated& ,!at in*unctionapplication occurred (e%ore t!e Court and t!e emp!asis was on $uropean directivesw!ic! re3uire a remedy (y way o% in*unction& .n in*unction re3uirin+ $ircom to(loc" access to ,!e irate Bay was t!en +ranted on !earin+ only t!e recordin+companiesH side o% t!e case& #n %act) $uropean law +ave a power to +rant suc! anin*unction (ut t!at power !ad not (een transposed into #ris! law& .not!er part o%t!e settlement was t!at t!e recordin+ companies would pursue t!e ot!er internetservice providers %or in*unctive relie%& ,!e recordin+ companies t!erea%ter issuedproceedin+s a+ainst ot!er internet service providers&

* eanw!ile) t!e :ata rotection Commissioner !ad (ecome involved indiscussions wit! $ircom over t!e period 11 ay 200= to 17 :ecem(er 200=speci%ically concernin+ t!e settlement and t!e protocol& Fe was concerned a(outt!ree speci%ic 3uestions& .t !is re3uest) Eelly J reentered t!e case so t!at dataprotection issues could (e decided (y t!e Fi+! Court& ,!e :ata rotectionCommissioner set out a list o% t!e t!ree 3uestions on w!ic! !e !ad concerns&Iota(ly) !e did not set out any ot!er issues includin+ ones w!ic! are now t!esu(*ect o% t!e notice in 3uestion in t!is case and notwit!standin+ t!e %act t!att!ose issues e9isted in law at t!at time) al(eit under a di%%erent %ormat& On 1DJanuary 2010 t!e :ata rotection Commissioner wrote a %ormal letter to $ircom asto !is concerns& ,!ese issues were %i9ed (y Eelly J %or !earin+& ,!e :ata rotectionCommissioner sou+!t an assurance in advance o% t!e !earin+ t!at t!e partieswould pay %or !is costs and/or would not see" costs a+ainst !im&

said) !e was not %unded appropriately& #t is o(vious t!at t!e :ata rotectionCommissioner) !avin+ an important role (y statute) ou+!t to (e properly andappropriately %unded to ta"e part in liti+ation t!at is central to t!e %unctions o% !iso%%ice& #t is wron+ t!at !e was not so %unded (y t!ose responsi(le& On 16 .pril 2010)!avin+ !eard t!e parties attendin+) t!is Court +ave *ud+ment on t!e dataprotection issues& #n .u+ust 2010 t!e protocol commenced& eanw!ile) t!erecordin+ companies !ad issued proceedin+s a+ainst C) anot!er ma*or internetservice provider& ,!at case did not settle (ut was decided&

*% On 11 Octo(er 2010 t!is Court +ave *ud+ment declinin+ to +rant in*unctiverelie% to t!e recordin+ companies) see EMI Records (Ireland) Ltd & Ors v UPCCommunications Ireland Ltd A2010 #$FC '77& ,!e reasonin+ o% t!e Court wasstrai+!t%orward& Section ;04; o% t!e Copyri+!t and Related Ri+!ts .ct 2000

provides t!at w!ere an owner o% copyri+!t noti%ies a party w!o ma"es availa(le%acilities %or ena(lin+ t!e ma"in+ availa(le to t!e pu(lic o% copies o% a wor" 5t!at

3


4/26

t!ose %acilities are (ein+ used to in%rin+e t!e copyri+!t in t!at wor" and t!at person%ails to remove that in$ringing materialas soon as practica(le t!erea%ter t!atperson s!all also (e lia(le %or t!e in%rin+ement& .t t!e time o% t!e passin+ o% t!eCopyri+!t and Related Ri+!ts .ct 2000) :irective 2000/'1/$C o% t!e $uropeanarliament and o% t!e Council o% 8 June 2000 on certain le+al aspects o% in%ormationsociety services) in particular electronic commerce in t!e #nternal ar"et 45$

Commerce :irective !ad (een passed& .rticle 22 o% t!at directive +ave t!e Stateup to 17 January 2002) to implement its terms& ,!e Copyri+!t and Related Ri+!ts.ct 2000 was passed in li+!t o% dra%t le+islation and in anticipation o% w!at would(ecome :irective 2001/2=/$C o% t!e $uropean arliament and o% t!e Council o% 22ay 2011 on t!e !armonisation o% certain aspects o% copyri+!t and related ri+!ts int!e in%ormation society 45,!e Copyri+!t :irective& :irective 2002/21/$C o% t!e$uropean arliament and o% t!e Council o% 7 arc! 2002 on a common re+ulatory%ramewor" %or electronic communications networ"s and services 45-ramewor":irective was passed on 7 arc! 2002& ,!e Communications Re+ulation .ct 2002)allowin+ %or re+ulation o% internet service providers (y ,!e Commission %orCommunications Re+ulation) was passed in t!e year 2002& ,!is was %ollowed (y t!e$uropean Community 4:irective 2000/'1 $C Re+ulations 200' 4S& Io& 68 o%200'& .rticle 1; o% t!e $Commerce :irective provides) at su(para& ') t!at t!e

de%ences descri(ed in t!at article are not to prevent a court) in accordance wit! t!eem(er StateHs le+al systems) %rom re3uirin+ 5t!e service provider to terminate orprevent an in%rin+ement& . similar wordin+ is contained in ot!er directives& ,!ewordin+ used in t!e $uropean directives re%ers to interruption) diversion and(loc"in+& #n particular) Recital ;6 o% t!e $Commerce :irective provides t!at@ 5>upon o(tainin+ actual "nowled+e or awareness o% ille+al activities At!e serviceprovider !as to act e9peditiously to remove or to disa,le access toin$ormation> ,!e $Commerce :irective !as speci%ic re%erence to t!e possi(ilityo% an in*unction in Recital ;D@

,!e limitations o% t!e lia(ility o% intermediary service providers esta(lis!edin t!is :irective do not a%%ect t!e possi(ility o% in*unctions o% di%%erent "inds

suc! in*unctions can in particular consist o% orders (y courts oradministrative aut!orities re3uirin+ the terminationor "revention o$anyin%rin+ement) includin+ t!e removal o% ille+al in%ormation or t!e disa(lin+ o%access to it&

** .rticle 12) entitled 5ere Conduit) imposes t!e %ollowin+ o(li+ation onem(er States@

1&

4a does not initiate t!e transmission4( does not select t!e receiver o% t!e transmission and4c does not select or modi%y t!e in%ormation contained in t!etransmission&2& ,!e acts o% transmission and o% provision o% access re%erred to inpara+rap! 1 include t!e automatic) intermediate and transient stora+e o%t!e in%ormation transmitted in so %ar as t!is ta"es place %or t!e solepurpose o% carryin+ out t!e transmission in t!e communication networ")and provided t!at t!e in%ormation is not stored %or any period lon+er t!anis reasona(ly necessary %or t!e transmission&

3.,!is .rticle s!all not a%%ect t!e possi(ility %or a court or administrativeaut!ority) in accordance wit! em(er States le+al systems) o% re3uirin+t!e service provider to terminateor "revent an in$ringement&

4


5/26

*+ ,!e process descri(ed in t!e $uropean le+islation is not t!e same asremoving in$ringing material) w!ic! is t!e wordin+ under section ;04; o% t!eCopyri+!t and Related Ri+!ts .ct 2000& .n intermediary is not removin+ a music orvideo trac" (y (loc"in+ or divertin+ it w!en it is s!ootin+ alon+ an electricalconnection in tiny pieces %rom many sources& ,o stop copyri+!t in%rin+ement) anintermediary needs to terminate or disa(le or prevent t!e communication& #n turn)

t!at depends on t!e relevant tec!nical solution proposed& ,!e $uropean le+islationwords are@ remove) disa,le) terminate) "revent&

*- ,!e t!ree 3uestions as"ed (y t!e :ata rotection Commissioner in t!eproceedin+s inspired (y !im) (ut in w!ic! !e did not participate) were@

1& :oes data comprisin+ # addresses) in t!e !ands o% t!e plainti%%s or t!eira+ent4s) and ta"in+ account o% t!e purpose %or w!ic! t!ey are collectedand t!eir intended provision to t!e de%endant) constitute personal data%or t!e purposes o% t!e :ata rotection .cts 1=88 and 200') t!ere(yre3uirin+ t!at t!e collection o% suc! # addresses (y t!e plainti%%s or t!eira+ents must comply wit! t!e speci%ic re3uirements o% eac! o% ss& 2) 2.)2B) 2C and 2: o% t!e :ata rotection .ct 1=88) as amended?

2& Favin+ re+ard to s& 2.41 o% t!e :ata rotection .ct 1=88) as amended)and assumin+ %or current purposes t!at t!e processin+ (y t!e de%endanto% 5personal data in t!e conte9t o% t!e t!ird o% t!e t!ree steps envisa+ed(y t!e +raduated response sc!eme proposed under t!e terms o% t!issettlement 4i&e& t!e termination o% an internet users su(scription is5necessary %or t!e purposes o% t!e le+itimate interests pursued (y t!ede%endant) does suc! processin+ represent 5unwarranted processin+ (yreasons o% pre*udice to t!e %undamental ri+!ts and %reedoms or le+itimateinterests o% t!e data su(*ect?

'& Favin+ re+ard to ss& 2.41 and 2B41 o% t!e :ata rotection .ct 1=88) asamended) is it open to t!e plainti%%s and/or t!e de%endant to implementt!e +raduated response process set out in t!e terms o% t!e settlementincludin+) in particular) t!e termination o% an internet users su(scriptionunder step ' o% t!at process) in circumstances w!ere@4a in doin+ so t!ey would (e en+a+ed in t!e processin+ o% personal data

and/or sensitive personal data 4in so %ar as t!e data can (econsidered to relate to t!e commission o% a criminal o%%ence)includin+ t!e provision o% suc! data %rom one private entity toanot!er private entity

4( t!e termination o% an internet users su(scription (y t!e de%endantwould (e predicated on t!e internet user in 3uestion !avin+committed an o%%ence 4i&e& t!e uploadin+ o% copyri+!tprotectedmaterial to a t!ird party (y means o% a peer to peer application (utwit!out any suc! o%%ence !avin+ (een t!e su(*ect o% investi+ation (yan aut!orised (ody and) %urt!er) wit!out any determination !avin+(een made (y a court o% competent *urisdiction) %ollowin+ t!econduct o% a %air and impartial !earin+) to t!e e%%ect t!at an o%%ence!ad in %act (een committed&

5


6/26

*. ,!e answers o% t!e Court +iven in t!e a(sence o% t!e :ata rotectionCommissioner are availa(le at A2010 ; #R ';=) at '61'7'&

*& #n de%ence o% t!is application to 3uas! t!e notice o% 11 January 2012) counsel%or t!e :ata rotection Commissioner su(mits t!at@ t!e relevant le+islation !assince c!an+ed) t!at is correct (ut !e accepts t!at t!e le+islation was t!ere in

similar %orm previously t!at matters !ave moved %rom t!e t!eoretical to t!epractical wit! t!e complaint t!at t!e $ircom contract wit! its su(scri(ers s!ould!ave (een c!an+ed (ut was not c!an+ed) a matter t!at could previously !ave (eenar+ued (y t!e :ata rotection Commissioner (ut was not t!at privacy law !as(een (reac!ed and t!at t!e case law o% t!e Court o% Justice o% t!e $uropean nion!as developed so as to ma"e t!e prior *ud+ment o% t!e Court on data protectionissues now irrelevant& ,!e case apparently re%erred to in correspondence (y t!e:ata rotection Commissioner as c!an+in+ t!e entire le+al landscape on copyri+!tprotection was Case C70/10 Scarlet Extended S.A. v. Socit !el"e des auteurs#com$ositeurs et diteurs SCRL (SA%AM).

The /otice

+' ,!e notice o% 11 January 2012 (y t!e :ata rotection Commissioner statedt!at t!e provisions o% data protection le+islation in%rin+ed (y $ircom t!rou+! t!esettlement and protocol were@

1. Re+ulation D41 o% t!e Re+ulations in t!at eircom !as %acilitated or is%acilitatin+ t!e listenin+) tappin+) stora+e or ot!er "inds o%interception or surveillance o% communications and related tra%%icdata o% users o% eircomHs internet services) (y persons ot!er t!ansuc! users) wit!out t!e consent o% t!e users concerned (y means o%implementin+ t!e rotocol

2. Re+ulation 6 o% t!e Re+ulations in t!at eircom !as %ailed 4or is %ailin+to ensure t!at tra%%ic data relatin+ to su(scri(ers and users

processed and stored %or t!e purpose o% t!e transmission o% acommunication 4includin+) in particular) tra%%ic data comprisin+ #addresses assi+ned (y eircom to a su(scri(er at a particular point intime is erased or made anonymous w!en it is no lon+er needed %ort!at purpose save to t!e e9tent t!at suc! data may (e retained andprocessed and/or stored %or a purpose prescri(ed in t!e Re+ulations

'& Sections 2414a L 2: o% t!e : .cts in t!at eircom !as %ailed 4or is%ailin+ to provide su(scri(ers wit! in%ormation necessary to rendert!e o(tainin+ and/or processin+ o% t!eir personal data 5%air %or t!epurposes o% said Section 2414a&

4. Section 2414( o% t!e : .cts in t!at eircom !as %ailed 4or is %ailin+to comply wit! t!e re3uirement t!at personal data o(tained and/orprocessed (y or on (e!al% o% eircom s!all (e accurate) eircom !avin+

incorrectly identi%ied particular su(scri(ers as persons w!o !aden+a+ed in ille+al peer to peer %ile s!arin+ usin+ # addressesassi+ned to eircom

D& Section 2414c4i o% t!e : .cts in t!at eircom !as o(tained 4or iso(tainin+ personal data in respect o% su(scri(ers ot!er t!an %or oneor more speci%ied) e9plicit and le+itimate purposes

6& Section 2414c4ii o% t!e : .cts in t!at eircom !as %urt!er processed4or is %urt!er processin+ personal data in respect o% su(scri(ers in amanner incompati(le wit! t!e purpose %or w!ic! t!at data waso(tained and is retained

7& Section 2.41 o% t!e : .cts in t!at eircom !as processed 4or isprocessin+ personal data o% a su(scri(er wit!out t!e su(scri(erHsconsent and/or wit!out meetin+ any one or more o% t!e ot!erconditions speci%ied in t!at Section

6


7/26

8& Section 2B o% t!e : .cts in t!at eircom !as processed 4or isprocessin+ sensitive personal data) namely data relatin+ to t!ecommission or alle+ed commission o% o%%ences %urt!er to Section 1;0o% t!e Copyri+!t and Related Ri+!ts .ct 2000) wit!out complyin+wit! t!e re3uirements o% Sections 2 and 2. o% t!e : .cts and/orwit!out meetin+ one or more o% t!e conditions speci%ied in Section

2B414( t!ereo%&

+ ,!e :ata rotection Commissioner t!ere%ore ordered) on peril o% t!ecommission o% a criminal o%%ence) t!at $ircom (rin+ t!e implementation o% t!eprotocol to an end (y ta"in+ t!e %ollowin+ actions@

4i ta"e all suc! steps as are necessary to comply wit! t!e provisions o%t!e : .cts and Re+ulations concerned) suc! steps to (e ta"enwit!in 60 days o% t!e date o% receipt o% t!is Iotice

4ii pendin+ suc! steps (ein+ ta"en) to cease %ort!wit! t!e o(tainin+and/or processin+ o% su(scri(er data in t!e conte9t o% t!eimplementation o% t!e rotocol) includin+) %or t!e avoidance o% dou(t)t!e receipt o% su(scri(er data %rom) or t!e transmission o% su(scri(er

data to) any ot!er party to t!e rotocol or t!eir servants or a+entsand)

4iii ta"e steps to destroy and/or erase any and all su(scri(er dataprocessed (y eircom in t!e conte9t o% t!e implementation o% t!erotocol wit!in 60 days o% receipt o% t!is Iotice&

+% #t is wit! a de+ree o% concern t!at t!e Court immediately notes t!at t!e :atarotection Commissioner does not accept t!at t!e mista"e (y $ircom in ad*ustin+cloc"s was t!en in t!e past& #t is neit!er le+ally ri+!t nor %air t!at an error can +iverise to a command over a year later to cease an activity w!en t!at error !as lon+since (een corrected and w!ere t!ere is no indication t!at it would ever (erepeated&

Curial de$erence

-' Only in de%ined circumstances is *udicial review o% a decisionma"in+ processavaila(le& ,o e9tend *udicial review outside t!e proper (oundaries o% t!at remedy isto introduce uncertainty into t!e interaction o% *udicial and administrative powersee Ee v. Minister or 'ustice# Eualit and La* ReormA2011 #$FC 21;& ,!erecan (e tri(unals w!ic! o% t!eir nature deal wit! specialist disciplines&

7


8/26

o% e9pert (odies was addressed in -enr /enn & Sons (Ireland) Ltd. v.Minister or Social 0elare A1==8 1 #&R& ';& Familton CJ stated t!at@

5#t would (e desira(le to ta"e t!is opportunity o% e9pressin+ t!e viewt!at t!e courts s!ould (e slow to inter%ere wit! t!e decisions o%e9pert administrative tri(unals&

an identi%ia(le error o% law or an unsustaina(le %indin+ o% %act (y atri(unal suc! conclusions must (e corrected& Ot!erwise it s!ould (ereco+nised t!at tri(unals w!ic! !ave (een +iven statutory tas"s toper%orm and e9ercise t!eir %unctions) as is now usually t!e case) wit!a !i+! de+ree o% e9pertise and provide co!erent and (alanced*ud+ments on t!e evidence and ar+ument !eard (y t!em it s!ouldnot (e necessary %or t!e courts to review t!eir decisions (y way o%appeal or *udicial review&

,!e need %or restraint !as (een !elp%ully e9plained in t!e %ollowin+ terms@

5

t!e le+ality o% a pu(lic decision) t!ere are sound reasons %or t!ee9ercise o% restraint in t!e application o% t!e review principles& #% t!e*ud+es overreac!) t!ey commit t!e error w!ic! review !as (eendesi+ned to prevent@ t!ey a(use *urisdiction& .nd in doin+ so) t!ere isa practical dan+er t!at t!ey may end up (ein+ responsi(le %ordecisions w!ic! t!ey are not) (y trainin+ or e9perience 3uali%ied toma"e& Specialist (odies are esta(lis!ed (y le+islation o%ten (ecauset!eir mem(ers will !ave particular "nowled+e o% t!eir %ields o%activity& ,!at "nowled+e may o%ten not necessarily (e imparted to orrest in a *ud+e dealin+ wit! a review application /e %lacam) JudicialReview) Second $dition 4:u(lin 200=&

- Curial de%erence is not a new concept and it is not to (e automatically applied

even to (odies dealin+ wit! issues o% %act& #n t!e conte9t o% a statutory appeal) inP1iladel$1ia Stora"e %atter Co. v. Controller o Industrial and Commercial Pro$ertA1='D #R D7D Eennedy CJ said at D='@

,!e Courts in $n+land !ave) !owever) indicated very stron+ly t!at t!ey willpay +reat attention to t!e decision o% a specialist o%%icer li"e t!e Controller&Io dou(t t!e de+ree o% suc! attention will vary wit! t!e len+t! o% time !e!as !eld !is o%%ice and !is conse3uent e9perience) and t!e 3uali%icationsand t!e "nown a(ility o% t!e o%%icer& #% t!e $n+lis! courts went to t!e e9tento% acceptin+ !is view as t!e e9ercise o% a *udicial discretion (y w!ic! t!eCourt s!ould (e (ound) we could not %ollow t!em in t!is country) as t!atwould) in my opinion) (e contrary to a constitutional principle w!ic! (inds

us) and w!ic! we must (e *ealous to maintain& #n my opinion) t!ere%ore)w!ile we read t!e views o% t!e Controller wit! respect and in t!e presentcase wit! admiration o% t!e clarity and a(ility o% !is statement o% t!em) weare 3uite %ree to %orm our own opinion untrammelled (y t!em&

-% #t must (e emp!asised t!at curial de%erence cannot arise w!ere (y statuereasons %or a decision are re3uired (ut none are +iven& Ior can curial de%erenceever (e a %actor in *udicial review w!ere a mista"e o% law puts a tri(unal outside t!e*urisdiction con%erred on it (y statute& #n appropriate cases) w!ere errors occureven on t!ose issues t!e +eneral discretion as to *udicial review may (e invo"eddependin+ on t!e precise circumstances in appropriate cases& ,!e principle o%curial de%erence on issues o% %act and decisions on t!e appropriate (alancin+ o%competin+ interests !as) !owever) not!in+ to do wit! any case suc! as t!is one

w!ic! concerns t!e o(li+ation to +ive reasons and t!e proper interpretation o%powers con%erred (y statute on an administrative o%%icial&&

8


9/26


10/26

w!om copyri+!t material will (e uploaded and downloaded& ,!at activity can o%course (e law%ul as in uploadin+ a television pro+ramme %reely availa(le on t!ewe(site o% a television company&

swarm& #n doin+ so %or t!e purpose o% uploadin+ or downloadin+ copyri+!t material)t!at activity will (e accompanied (y an # address w!ic! would mean not!in+ touploaders and downloaders& ,!at would not t!ere%ore identi%y anyone to anyparticipant in t!e swarm& Counsel %or t!e :ata rotection Commissioner li"ened t!edetection o% an # address (y an a+ent o% t!e recordin+ companies participatin+ in aswarm to t!at o% university aut!orities openin+ t!e loc"er o%) searc!in+ t!e !ome o%and monitorin+ t!e mo(ile p!one o% students w!o !ave merely si+ned a contract%or tuition& Suc! participation (y an a+ent o% t!e recordin+ companies in a swarmt!at would not (e %or t!e purpose o% ille+al uploadin+ and downloadin+ (ut %or t!epurpose o% detectin+ t!ose en+a+ed in t!at activity) was to (e e3uated) !e ar+ued)to t!e +ardaN enterin+ !ouses wit!out a searc! warrant merely (ecause t!ey t!in"t!at t!ere mi+!t (e a controlled dru+ t!ere& #t was also to (e e3uated wit! t!ecriminal law de%ence o% entrapment) !e ur+ed& Counsel %or t!e recordin+ companies

su(mitted t!at everyone could t!in" o% people to w!om t!ey would wis! toanonymously ma"e t!reatenin+ telep!one calls (ut t!at desire did not render suc!activity eit!er et!ical or law%ul& #t is !ard to a+ree wit! eit!er o% t!ese su(missions&Counsel %or $ircom ar+ued t!at t!e activity o% peertopeer uploadin+ anddownloadin+ o% copyri+!t material was a mar"etplace transaction w!ic! could not(e distin+uis!ed %rom a trader +oin+ and standin+ on t!e side in Fenry Street in:u(lin city centre wit! a (o9 load o% ::s t!at were copied ille+ally and o%%erin+t!ese to anyone w!o mi+!t come alon+& ,!at su(mission is a %air c!aracterisation&

& :esirin+ t!at an activity remain undetected and !avin+ an entitlement toprivacy are two entirely di%%erent concepts& Some activities are naturally privateaccordin+ to t!e notions o% decent t!in"in+& Sometimes t!e a%%airs t!at we s!arewit! ot!ers are private %rom w!at we communicate or t!e circumstances in w!ic!we s!are& rivacy may (e descri(ed as t!e (undle o% e9pectations !eld (yreasona(le citiens t!at actions w!ic! we le+itimately s!ield %rom ot!ers orcommunications in con%idence will (e respected t!rou+! not (ein+ en3uired into ordisseminated outside t!e sp!ere wit!in w!ic! t!e trust o% ot!ers) arisin+ t!rou+!contract or t!e reposin+ o% t!at trust) is e9pected not to (e (etrayed& Breac! o%privacy is t!us t!e unwelcome intrusion o% ot!ers into aspects o% livin+ t!at areparticularly personal to t!e individual or into situation o% in%ormation s!ared incon%idence& #n Scarlet Extended) .dvocate Keneral Cru illalPn appeared toendorse t!e idea t!at anonymity is essential %or t!e preservation o% t!e ri+!t toprivacy on t!e internet& #n !is opinion o% 1; .pril 2011 at para+rap! 7' !e said@

#l convient dHe9aminer successivement la mesure sollicite en tant 3ue

possi(le limitation au droit Q la protection des donnes personnelles) dHunepart) et au droit au respect du secret des communications) dHautre part&:Hune manire +nrale) comme la Commission lHa par%ois constat) lapossi(ilit de rester anonyme est essentielle si lHon veut prserver les droits%ondamentau9 Q la vie prive dans le cy(erespace& Cependant) sHil apparatclairement 3ue les directives =D/;6 et 2002/D8 doivent Ttre interprtes aure+ard des articles 7 et 8 de la c!arte) lus le cas c!ant Q la lumire delHarticle 8 de la C$:F) le lien unissant le droit Q la protection des donnespersonnelles 4article 8 de la c!arte et le dploiement du systme de %iltra+eet de (loca+e sollicit est lui (eaucoup moins clair&

&% #n t!e *ud+ment) t!e Court o% Justice o% t!e $uropean nion did not rule on t!isproposition& ,!at seems correct& .n activity o% swarm participation %or peertopeer

downloadin+ does not le+itimately carry t!e e9pectation o% privacy& #t is %lyin+ int!e %ace o% commonsense %or t!e :ata rotection Commissioner to e3uate

10


11/26

participation in an open communication wit! all comers on t!e internet %or t!epurpose o% ille+al downloadin+ o% copyri+!t material wit! interception) wit! tappin+or wit! listenin+& ,!ose concepts are ri+!tly to (e deprecated as ille+al incircumstances o% privacy& ,!at is not t!e situation !ere@ t!ere is no le+itimatereposin+ o% trust pursuant to contract or reasona(le e9pectation t!at w!en aperson +oes on t!e internet wit! a view to uploadin+ or downloadin+ w!at does not

(elon+ to t!em& ,!at circumstance does not +ive rise to any constitutionalentitlement or !uman ri+!t to remain immune %rom a music company alsoparticipatin+ in t!at open %orum to discover t!e economic dama+e (ein+ done to itand to creative artists& ,!e interest o% music companies is proper andproportionate& #t is (eyond dou(t t!at w!ile eac! individual act o% copyin+) in itsel%)does little dama+e t!e reproduction o% t!at activity (y millions repeated over timeis industrial in scale& ,!e response o% internet service providers o% doin+ not!in+per!aps re%lects t!e +reater economic stren+t! o% intermediaries as compared tocreative people or recordin+ companies& ,!ere is also t!e immeasura(le anddisproportionate power o% t!ese peertopeer swarms w!ic! are increasin+lyrenderin+ t!e entitlement to t!ose on w!om creativity depends to no consideration&

&* Io evidence was o%%ered in t!is case as to t!e application o% privacy in t!ese

circumstances& :ue to t!e lac" o% reasons in t!e notice o% 11 January 2012) t!emotivation (e!ind t!e condemnation (y t!e :ata rotection Commissioner o% anymusic company participatin+) wit! a view to protectin+ its own interest in copyri+!t)in a peertopeer swarm devoted to ille+al uploadin+ and downloadin+ is not clear&Ior is it clear as to !ow privacy mi+!t come into t!e matter at all& ,!is issue wasanalysed wit! t!e (ene%it o% opposin+ ar+ument and evidence (y t!is Court in EMIRecords (Ireland) Ltd & Ors v UPC Communications Ireland LtdA2010 #$FC '77& #3uote t!e appropriate para+rap!s %rom t!at *ud+ment@

.. ,!e e9istence o% a ri+!t to privacy is not in dou(t as Familton & in2enned v. Ireland A1=87 #&R& D87 put it) UAt!e ri+!t to privacy is not anissue) t!e issue is t!e e9tent o% t!at ri+!t or t!e e9tent o% t!at ri+!t 5to (ele%t alone& #t !as (een consistently invo"ed in t!e courts over t!e yearssee) %or e9ample)3 v. +lnn 4nreported) Fi+! Court) Costello J&) 1=t!ay)1==; and Re Article 45 and t1e Em$loment Eualit %ill 6775 A1==7 2 #&R&'21& :espite t!is) privacy as a ri+!t is di%%icult to de%ine ade3uately& ,!e#ris! courts !ave +rappled wit! t!e scope o% t!e ri+!t since it was %irstreco+nised in Mc8ee v. Attorne 8eneral A1=7; #&R& 28; as anunenumerated ri+!t) %lowin+ %rom t!e StateHs underta"in+ to de%end andvindicate t!e personal ri+!ts o% every citien under .rticle ;0&'&1 o% t!eConstitution& rivacy in t!e modern panoptic society must (e %le9i(leenou+! to address new tec!nolo+ies and developments and t!eir privacyimplications w!ile at t!e same time certain enou+! as to o%%er +uidance andclarity as a matter o% law& Eeepin+ t!is tension in mind) it is e9tremelydi%%icult to arrive at an appropriate de%inition& :escription is t!ere%ore

pre%era(le&.& ,!e ri+!t to privacy !as (een said to encapsulate t!e Uri+!t to (e le%taloneH 4per 0als1 '. in !is dissentin+ *ud+ment as a *ud+e o% t!e $uropeanCourt o% Fuman Ri+!ts in /ud"eon v. United 2in"dom41=81 ; $&F&R&R& 1;=or as 5t!e %undamental value o% personal autonomy 4per Sedley G&J& in/ou"las v. -ello9 A2001 1 V&B& =67 at para& 126 W t!e ri+!t o% t!e individualto e9ercise control over in%ormation) possessions and conduct o% a personalnature and) as an o(vious corollary) t!e ri+!t to prevent ot!ers %romaccessin+ t!is in%ormation& On an international level t!is State is a si+natoryto various treaties w!ic! clearly enumerate t!e ri+!t to privacy& ,!e mostimportant o% t!ese is contained in .rticle 8 o% t!e $uropean Convention onFuman Ri+!ts w!ic! provides) inter alia#t!at 5Aeveryone !as t!e ri+!t torespect %or !is private and %amily li%e) !is !ome and !is correspondence&

,!is ri+!t to U(e le%t aloneH !as spawned a considera(le amount o% dataprotection le+islation) most noticea(ly at a $uropean level 4See) %or

11


12/26

e9ample) arliament and Council :irective =D/;6/$C o% 2; Octo(er 1==D ont!e protection o% individuals wit! re+ard to t!e processin+ o% personal dataand on t!e %ree movement o% suc! data O&J& G 281 2'&11&1==D A5t!e :atarotection :irective and on a domestic level) principally t!rou+! t!e :atarotection .ct 1=88) as amended&.1 # %ind it impossi(le to reco+nise as a matter o% constitutional law) t!at

t!e protection o% t!e entitlement to (e le%t in t!e sp!ere o% privatecommunications could ever e9tend to conversations) emails) letters)p!onecalls or any ot!er communication desi+ned to %urt!er a criminalenterprise& Criminals leave t!e private sp!ere w!en t!ey in%rin+e t!e ri+!tso% ot!er) or conspire in t!at respect& Ge+islative intervention may meandetection involves a statutory in%rin+ement@ leavin+ t!e admission o%evidence to (e decided on t!e (alance o% respect %or t!e law and t!eseriousness o% w!at is involved& #n t!e case o% internet %ile s!arin+ to in%rin+ecopyri+!t) # am o% t!e view t!at t!ere are no privacy or data protectionimplications to detectin+ unaut!orised downloads o% copyri+!t materialusin+ peertopeer tec!nolo+y 4see)EMI Records (Ireland) Limited v. EircomLimited A2010 #$FC 108) 4nreported) Fi+! Court) C!arleton J&) 16 t! .pril)2010.#n t!is re+ard) # am ta"in+ into account t!e %act t!at t!e process o%

detection t!rou+! :tecIet is essentially anonymous& .s previouslyemp!asised) a communication (etween t!e recordin+ companies and aninternet service provider) !avin+ used t!e %acilities o%%ered (y t!e :tecIet)t!at in a particular mont! a certain one !undred su(scri(ers downloaded anavera+e o% twenty copyri+!t protected trac"s eac!) ille+ally) +ivin+ a dateand time and t!e # address) discloses no in%ormation pu(licly& ,!erecordin+ companies do not t!ere(y !arvest t!e names and addresses o%in%rin+ers o% copyri+!t %or data purposes) or %or %uture communication or %orevidence in a potential criminal case& ,!ey +et not!in+ apart %rom a set o%num(ers& .s (etween C and t!eir customers) any solution to t!is ille+alactivity is conducted privately as (etween t!em& ,!ey already "now eac!ot!er) as t!ey are *oined (y a contract& ,!at communication is wit!in t!eran+e o% matters over w!ic! an internet service provider is entitled to dealwit! its customer& ,!e a(use o% an internet service %or copyri+!t t!e%t is aserious matter %rom t!e point o% view o% t!e +eneral en%orcement o%copyri+!t protection& .n internet service provider is entitled to !ave a policya+ainst it& #n t!is instance) it is apparent t!at C pretends to !ave suc! apolicy& ,!e e9istence o% a +enuine antipiracy policy would en!ance t!epu(lic standin+ o% any corporation and is a matter in respect o% w!ic! t!ey!ave an interest& $n%orcin+ a private contract) in t!is conte9t) does not !aveprivacy implications& .ny %orm o% (loc"in+ on t!at customer and internetservice provider (asis does not carry a privacy implication& #% t!e response isa +raduated one) as opposed to a (loc"in+ o% communications merely on a(asis o% identi%yin+ its nature and t!e relevant # num(er) no privacyimplication arises& .s ro%essor Ii9on put it@

5#% to ac!ieve t!e +oal o% identi%yin+ t!at you !ave to do ot!er t!in+s)li"e store t!e # addresses o% w!ere it came %rom and w!ere it wentto) and various ot!er t!in+s) and you are spottin+ t!ose %or in%rin+in+and non in%rin+in+ uses) t!en # would start to worry a(out t!atin%ormation (ein+ stored) and !ow it is (ein+ used) %or w!atpurposes> #n a +raduated response) t!ey are not) t!e :tecIet +uysare loo"in+ at every communication t!at +oes t!rou+! t!e Cnetwor"& no(ody is e9posin+ anyt!in+ in t!ese networ"s)

apart %rom t!e %act t!at t!ey !ave an # address) some made up username) and t!e %iles t!at t!ey are in%rin+in+) or t!e %iles t!ey are not

12


13/26

in%rin+in+& So) t!at in%ormation is made pu(licly availa(le Aover t!enetwor" anyway so) t!at is %ine&

.2 r& Se!ested !ad a similar view& Fe said@5# mean all o% t!e in%ormation t!at we capture is pu(licly transmittedin%ormation t!at anyone wit! an internet communication and a peertopeer pro+ramme) t!at is %reely downloada(le) would (e a(le to

capture& .+ain all t!e %iles t!at we capture !ere are %iles t!at areactively made availa(le (y t!e users> Ain t!is case speci%ically weare solely loo"in+ %or sound recordin+& So we only loo" %or contentt!at is part o% t!at %ile t!at we !ave (een +iven to monitor %or&

&' ,!at evidence is t!e (asis o% my conclusion t!at t!e ri+!t o% privacyis not en+a+ed (y t!e scrutiny o% %iles pu(licly made availa(le %or copyri+!tt!e%t on t!e internet and nor is it en+a+ed (y deep pac"et inspection %or t!epurpose o% detectin+ and divertin+ or disena(lin+ suc! transmissions&

&+ ,!e "eepin+ o% (illin+ in%ormation is ar+ued (y t!e :ata rotection Commissionto (e unlaw%ul& Counsel %or $ircom pointed out t!at any commercial company %acin+a potential (reac! o% contract action) w!ic! !as a limitation period o% si9 years) isentitled to "eep and use (illin+ in%ormation %or t!at period& -urt!ermore (y si+nin+

a contract w!ic! re3uires appropriate and law%ul use o% t!e internet) andspeci%ically outlaws (reac! o% copyri+!t) t!e use o% t!at (illin+ in%ormation %oren%orcin+ a contract in t!e ordinary way is not inappropriate and does notconstitute a (reac! o% privacy& .part %rom t!e %act t!at t!is issue could !ave (een)(ut was not) raised (y t!e :ata rotection Commissioner in t!e previous liti+ation)contracts are to (e construed in order to +ive (usiness e%%icacy to t!at w!ic! !as(een a+reed&

&-

7.6 #n summary) peertopeer s!arin+ is no more a (reac! o% privacy t!an anyot!er %orm o% participation in copyri+!t in%rin+ement (y any o% t!e participants&

The Court o$ #ustice o$ the Euro"ean Union

1' ,!e Court o% Justice o% t!e $uropean nion !as not aut!orised t!e unaut!oriseddownloadin+ o% copyri+!t material %rom t!e internet& ,o do so) t!e Court would!ave to reverse t!e relevant directives& -urt!ermore) any rearran+ement o%%undamental ri+!ts to place copyri+!t automatically at t!e mercy o% competin+ri+!ts to communicate) to run a (usiness) to %air procedures or to privacy would)wit!out any le+al *usti%ication) place copyri+!t as a lesser intellectual propertyentitlement to trade mar" ri+!ts) to patent protection) to industrial secrets and todesi+n protection& Copyri+!t is not to (e ran"ed a(ove t!ose entitlements& Ior)!owever) is t!ere any warrant in $uropean le+islation or case decisions %or anydevelopment t!at would place copyri+!t (elow suc! entitlements) never mindoutside le+al protection) simply (ecause (reac!es occur on t!e internet& #n case C'2;/0= O:Oral v e%at!e Court o% Justice o% t!e $uropean nion a%%irmed t!at t!e

13


14/26

in%rin+ement o% trade mar" ri+!ts online s!ould +ive rise to an entitlement to ane%%ective in*unction a+ainst an intermediary at t!e suit o% t!e !older o% t!ose ri+!tsntellectual property ri+!ts are at t!e !eart o% economic activity in t!e $uropeannion& #t was a%%irmed at para+rap! 1;; o% t!e *ud+ment t!at 5t!e t!ird sentence o%.rticle 11 o% A:irective 200;/;8/$C o% t!e $uropean arliament and o% t!e Council o%2= .pril 200; on t!e en%orcement o% intellectual property ri+!ts must (e

interpreted as re3uirin+ t!e em(er States to ensure t!at t!e national courts wit!*urisdiction in relation to t!e protection o% intellectual property ri+!ts are a(le toorder t!e operator o% an online mar"etplace to ta"e measures w!ic! contri(ute) notonly to (rin+in+ to an end in%rin+ements o% t!ose ri+!ts (y users o% t!atmar"etplace) (ut also to preventin+ %urt!er in%rin+ements o% t!at "ind& ,!osein*unctions must (e e%%ective) proportionate) dissuasive and must not create(arriers to le+itimate trade& ,!e relevant *ud+ments all are to t!e same e%%ect&.nydecision to recast) muc! less to undermine) any %orm o% intellectual property ri+!tsdoes not lie wit!in t!e *udicial sp!ere o% +overnment under t!e treaties&

1 #n case C27D/06 Productores de M;sica de Es$a a (Promusicae) v permit em(er States to limit to t!econte9t o% a criminal investi+ation or to sa%e+uard pu(lic security and nationalde%ence) t!us e9cludin+ civil proceedin+s) t!e duty o% operators o% electroniccommunications networ"s and providers o% data stora+e services to retain andma"e availa(le connection and tra%%ic date +enerated (y t!e communicationsesta(lis!ed durin+ t!e supply o% an in%ormation society service? ,!e Court o%Justice o% t!e $uropean nion ruled t!at Community law does not re3uire t!eem(er States to lay down an o(li+ation to communicate personal data in order toensure e%%ective protection o% copyri+!t in t!e conte9t o% civil proceedin+s&Fowever) it noted t!at) in transposin+ :irectives 2000/'1) 2001/2=) 200;/D8 and2002/D8) t!e em(er States must ta"e care to rely on an interpretation o% t!emw!ic! allows a %air (alance to (e struc" (etween t!e various %undamental ri+!tsprotected (y t!e Community le+al order& -inally) it reiterated t!at) w!enimplementin+ t!e measures transposin+ t!ose directives) t!e aut!orities and courtso% t!e em(er States must not only interpret t!eir national law in a mannerconsistent wit! t!ose directives) (ut must also ensure t!at t!ey do not rely on aninterpretation o% t!em w!ic! would (e in con%lict wit! t!ose %undamental ri+!t o%wit! t!e ot!er +eneral principles o% Community law) suc! as t!e principle o%

proportionality& ,!is analysis !as not %undamentally c!an+ed and nor does it seempossi(le t!at it could& $ac! case is a(out t!e nature o% t!e order sou+!t to (eimposed) t!e proportionality o% t!at order to t!e (urdens and (ene%its t!at itimposes and t!e (alance to (e struc" (etween competin+ ri+!ts&

1% ,!e ,reaty on t!e -unctionin+ o% t!e $uropean nion 45t!e ,reaty ma"est!ree speci%ic re%erences to intellectual property ri+!ts& .rticle 118 o% t!e ,reaty)w!ic! concerns t!e appro9imation o% laws) provides t!at t!e $uropean arliamentand t!e Council s!all esta(lis! measures %or t!e uni%orm protection o% intellectualproperty ri+!ts t!rou+!out t!e nion& .rticle 207 o% t!e ,reaty) w!ic! concerns t!ecommon commercial policy) e9plicitly provides t!at t!e common commercial policys!all (e (ased on uni%orm principles w!ic! !ave re+ard %or) inter alia) t!ecommercial aspects o% intellectual property& -inally) article 262 o% t!e ,reaty) w!ic!

concerns t!e Court o% Justice o% t!e $uropean nion) provides t!at t!e Court may (e

14


15/26

vested wit! t!e *urisdiction to resolve disputes relatin+ to acts adopted under t!etreaties w!ic! create $uropean intellectual property ri+!ts&

1* #n case C;61/10 %onnier Audio A% v Perect Communication S*eden A% atissue was t!e interpretation o% .rticles ' to D and 11 o% :irective 2006/2;/$C o% t!e$uropean arliament and o% t!e Council o% 1D arc! 2006 on t!e retention o% data

+enerated or processed in connection wit! t!e provision o% pu(licly availa(leelectronic communications services or o% pu(lic communications networ"s andamendin+ :irective 2002/D8/$C) and o% .rticle 8 o% :irective 200;/;8/$C o% t!e$uropean arliament and o% t!e Council o% 2= .pril 200; on t!e en%orcement o%intellectual property ri+!ts& ,!is case was directly relevant to t!e issues w!ic!concerned t!e :ata rotection Commissioner& .t issue was a Swedis! law w!ic!provided %or disclosure o% retained data %rom an intermediary w!ere copyri+!tin%rin+ement was sou+!t to (e pursued and w!ere conditions o% law entitled anaut!or or a successor in title to apply& Suc! an order was not to (e +ranted e9ceptunder conditions o% (alancin+ t!e 5nuisance or ot!er !arm w!ic! t!e measureentails %or t!e person a%%ected (y it or %or some ot!er con%lictin+ interest andprevented disclosure t!at persons 5close to !im !ad 5committed a criminal act&:irectly relevant was article 6 o% :irective 2002/D8/$C o% t!e $uropean arliamentand o% t!e Council o% 12 July 2002 concernin+ t!e processin+ o% personal data andt!e protection o% privacy in t!e electronic communications sector 4:irective onprivacy and electronic communications& ,!is law was in %orce w!en t!e :atarotection Commissioner %irst (ecame involved in discussions on t!e settlementprotocol in t!e EMI v Eircomcase& ,!is provides@

1& ,ra%%ic data relatin+ to su(scri(ers and users processed and stored(y t!e provider o% a pu(lic communications networ" or pu(licly availa(leelectronic communications service must (e erased or made anonymous w!enit is no lon+er needed %or t!e purpose o% t!e transmission o% a communicationwit!out pre*udice to para+rap!s 2) ' and D o% t!is .rticle and .rticle 1D41&

2& ,ra%%ic data necessary %or t!e purposes o% su(scri(er (illin+ andinterconnection payments may (e processed& Suc! processin+ is permissi(leonly up to t!e end o% t!e period durin+ w!ic! t!e (ill may law%ully (ec!allen+ed or payment pursued&

'& -or t!e purpose o% mar"etin+ electronic communications services or%or t!e provision o% value added services) t!e provider o% a pu(licly availa(leelectronic communications service may process t!e data re%erred to inpara+rap! 1 to t!e e9tent and %or t!e duration necessary %or suc! services ormar"etin+) i% t!e su(scri(er or user to w!om t!e data relate !as +iven !is/!erconsent& sers or su(scri(ers s!all (e +iven t!e possi(ility to wit!draw t!eirconsent %or t!e processin+ o% tra%%ic data at any time >

D& rocessin+ o% tra%%ic data) in accordance wit! para+rap!s 1) 2) ' and;) must (e restricted to persons actin+ under t!e aut!ority o% providers o% t!epu(lic communications networ"s and pu(licly availa(le electroniccommunications services !andlin+ (illin+ or tra%%ic mana+ement) customeren3uiries) %raud detection) mar"etin+ electronic communications services orprovidin+ a value added service) and must (e restricted to w!at is necessary%or t!e purposes o% suc! activities&

6& ara+rap!s 1) 2) ' and D s!all apply wit!out pre*udice to t!epossi(ility %or competent (odies to (e in%ormed o% tra%%ic data in con%ormitywit! applica(le le+islation wit! a view to settlin+ disputes) in particularinterconnection or (illin+ disputes&

1+ ,!e Court o% Justice o% t!e $uropean nion !eld t!at t!e relevant Swedis! lawcon%ormed wit! t!e relevant directives and wit! t!e +eneral principles o% $uropean

15


16/26

law and t!at it struc" an appropriate (alance) or rat!er allowed t!e decidin+ *ud+eto stri"e suc! a (alance) (etween competin+ ri+!ts& Since t!ere !as (een so muc!competitive ar+ument on t!is case) t!e clarity o% t!e reasonin+ o% t!e Courtprovides a clear response@

D1 #n order to +ive a use%ul answer) %irstly) it is necessary to (ear in mind

t!at t!e applicants in t!e main proceedin+s see" t!e communication o%t!e name and address o% an internet su(scri(er or user usin+ t!e #address %rom w!ic! it is presumed t!at an unlaw%ul e9c!an+e o% %ilescontainin+ protected wor"s too" place) in order to identi%y t!at person&

D2 #t must (e !eld t!at t!e communication sou+!t (y t!e applicants in t!emain proceedin+s constitutes t!e processin+ o% personal data wit!in t!emeanin+ o% t!e %irst para+rap! o% .rticle 2 o% :irective 2002/D8) read incon*unction wit! .rticle 24( o% :irective =D/;6& ,!at communicationt!ere%ore %alls wit!in t!e scope o% :irective 2002/D8 4see) to t!at e%%ect)Promusicae) para+rap! ;D&

D' #t must also (e noted t!at) in t!e main proceedin+s) t!e communicationo% t!ose data is re3uired in civil proceedin+s %or t!e (ene%it o% acopyri+!t !older or !is successor in title) t!at is to say) a private person)and not %or t!e (ene%it o% a competent national aut!ority&

D; #n t!at re+ard) it must (e stated at t!e outset t!at an application %orcommunication o% personal data in order to ensure e%%ective protectiono% copyri+!t %alls) (y its very o(*ect) wit!in t!e scope o% :irective200;/;8 4see) to t!at e%%ect) Promusicae) para+rap! D8&

DD ,!e Court !as already !eld t!at .rticle 84' o% :irective 200;/;8) read incon*unction wit! .rticle 1D41 o% :irective 2002/D8) does not precludeem(er States %rom imposin+ an o(li+ation to disclose to privatepersons personal data in order to ena(le t!em to (rin+ civil proceedin+s%or copyri+!t in%rin+ements) (ut nor does it re3uire t!ose em(er Statesto lay down suc! an o(li+ation 4see Promusicae) para+rap!s D; and DD)and order in LS8>8esellsc1at ?ur 0a1rne1mun" vonLeistun"ssc1ut?rec1ten) para+rap! 2=&

D6 Fowever) t!e Court pointed out t!at) w!en transposin+) inter alia):irectives 2002/D8 and 200;/;8 into national law) it is %or t!e em(erStates to ensure t!at t!ey rely on an interpretation o% t!ose directivesw!ic! allows a %air (alance to (e struc" (etween t!e various%undamental ri+!ts protected (y t!e $uropean nion le+al order&-urt!ermore) w!en implementin+ t!e measures transposin+ t!ose

directives) t!e aut!orities and courts o% em(er States must not onlyinterpret t!eir national law in a manner consistent wit! t!em) (ut mustalso ma"e sure t!at t!ey do not rely on an interpretation o% t!em w!ic!would con%lict wit! t!ose %undamental ri+!ts or wit! t!e ot!er +eneralprinciples o% $uropean nion law) suc! as t!e principle o% proportionality4see) to t!at e%%ect) Promusicae) para+rap! 68) and order in LS8>8esellsc1at ?ur 0a1rne1mun" von Leistun"ssc1ut?rec1ten) para+rap!28&

D7 #n t!e present case) t!e em(er State concerned !as decided to ma"euse o% t!e possi(ility availa(le to it) as descri(ed in para+rap! DD o% t!is*ud+ment) to lay down an o(li+ation to communicate personal data toprivate persons in civil proceedin+s&

16


17/26

D8 #t must (e noted t!at t!e national le+islation in 3uestion re3uires) interalia) t!at) %or an order %or disclosure o% t!e data in 3uestion to (e made)t!ere (e clear evidence o% an in%rin+ement o% an intellectual propertyri+!t) t!at t!e in%ormation can (e re+arded as %acilitatin+ t!einvesti+ation into an in%rin+ement o% copyri+!t or impairment o% suc! ari+!t and t!at t!e reasons %or t!e measure outwei+! t!e nuisance or

ot!er !arm w!ic! t!e measure may entail %or t!e person a%%ected (y itor %or some ot!er con%lictin+ interest&

D= ,!us) t!at le+islation ena(les t!e national court seised o% an application%or an order %or disclosure o% personal data) made (y a person w!o isentitled to act) to wei+! t!e con%lictin+ interests involved) on t!e (asis o%t!e %acts o% eac! case and ta"in+ due account o% t!e re3uirements o% t!eprinciple o% proportionality&

60 #n t!ose circumstances) suc! le+islation must (e re+arded as li"ely) inprinciple) to ensure a %air (alance (etween t!e protection o% intellectualproperty ri+!ts en*oyed (y copyri+!t !olders and t!e protection o%

personal data en*oyed (y internet su(scri(ers or users&

61 Favin+ re+ard to t!e %ore+oin+) t!e answer to t!e 3uestions re%erred ist!at@

:irective 2006/2; must (e interpreted as not precludin+ t!eapplication o% national le+islation (ased on .rticle 8 o% :irective200;/;8 w!ic!) in order to identi%y an internet su(scri(er or user)permits an internet service provider in civil proceedin+s to (eordered to +ive a copyri+!t !older or its representative in%ormationon t!e su(scri(er to w!om t!e internet service provider providedan # address w!ic! was alle+edly used in an in%rin+ement) sincet!at le+islation does not %all wit!in t!e material scope o% :irective

2006/2;

it is irrelevant to t!e main proceedin+s t!at t!e em(er Stateconcerned !as not yet transposed :irective 2006/2;) despite t!eperiod %or doin+ so !avin+ e9pired

:irectives 2002/D8 and 200;/;8 must (e interpreted as notprecludin+ national le+islation suc! as t!at at issue in t!e mainproceedin+s inso%ar as t!at le+islation ena(les t!e national courtseised o% an application %or an order %or disclosure o% personaldata) made (y a person w!o is entitled to act) to wei+! t!econ%lictin+ interests involved) on t!e (asis o% t!e %acts o% eac! case

and ta"in+ due account o% t!e re3uirements o% t!e principle o%proportionality&

1- #n t!e course o% correspondence) t!e :ata rotection Commissioner terselymentioned t!at a recent decision) re%errin+ to Scarlet Extended (y name) !adc!an+ed t!e le+al landscape and per!aps intended to imply t!at t!ere !ad (een ac!an+e copyri+!t protection on t!e internet& ,!is attitude was descri(ed (y counsel%or $ircom as a startlin+ misreadin+ o% t!at decision&

1. Case C70/10 Scarlet Extended S.A. v. Socit !el"e des auteurs#com$ositeurs et diteurs SCRL (SA%AM) involved a Bel+ian +roup called S.B.)representin+ aut!ors) composers and pu(lis!ers) initiatin+ proceedin+s a+ainst an

internet service provider called Scarlet& ,!e +roup claimed an entitlement to a(loc"in+ order to (rin+ to an end t!e ille+al downloadin+ o% protected wor"s (ymeans o% peertopeer use o% t!e Scarlet server& ,!e relevant Bel+ian le+islation

17


18/26

provided t!at w!ere a t!ird party uses t!e services o% an intermediary to in%rin+et!e intellectual property o% anot!er) t!e courts can order t!e intermediary to (rin+t!e in%rin+ement to an end& #n 200;) t!e resident o% t!e court o% %irst instance%ound t!at copyri+!t !ad (een in%rin+ed and appointed an e9pert to assess t!e%easi(ility o% t!e tec!nical solutions proposed (y S.B.& ,!e e9pert identi%ied onepossi(le solution) namely CopySense produced (y a %irm called .udi(le a+ic) (ut

e9pressed reservations as to its capacity to deal wit! !i+! volumes o% tra%%ic) t!e!i+! ac3uisition and operatin+ costs o% t!e system and its potentially s!orttec!nical duration o% t!ree years& ,!e Court +ranted an in*unction imposin+ t!attec!nical solution& On a re%erral o% relevant 3uestions to t!e Court o% Justice o% t!e$uropean nion) Scarlet ar+ued t!at t!e in*unction would constitute a +eneralo(li+ation to monitor contrary to .rticle 1D o% t!e $Commerce :irective) t!at itwould (e contrary to t!e mere conduit de%ence in .rticle 12 o% t!e $Commerce:irective and) %inally) t!at it would violate %undamental ri+!ts in particular t!eri+!ts to privacy) con%identiality o% correspondence and %reedom o% e9pression&-rom t!e te9t o% t!e *ud+ment) it is clear t!at t!e Court was concerned wit! t!e(readt! o% t!e in*unction w!ic! it considered would impose on Scarlet a +eneralmonitorin+ o(li+ation contrary to .rticle 1D o% t!e $Commerce :irective& -urt!er)t!e Court did not consider t!at t!e order properly (alanced t!e property ri+!ts

en*oyed (y t!e copyri+!t owners a+ainst ScarletHs ri+!t to conduct its (usiness& ,!eCourt was particularly concerned t!at t!e e9pense o% installin+ t!e tec!nolo+yre3uired would %all solely on Scarlet) contrary to .rticle ' o% t!e $n%orcement:irective) w!ic! re3uires t!at remedies not (e unnecessarily complicated or costly&,!e Court also considered t!at a %ilterin+ system would in%rin+e t!e ri+!ts o%ScarletHs users since it would involve t!e collection and identi%ication o% usersH #addresses contrary to .rticle 8 o% t!e $uropean Convention on Fuman Ri+!ts andcould potentially lead to a (loc"in+ o% law%ul communications t!us underminin+ t!e%reedom o% in%ormation contrary to .rticle 11&

1& ery similar 3uestions arose in anot!er re%erral %rom t!e courts o% Brussels tot!e Court o% Justice o% t!e $uropean nion in Case C'60/10 %el"isc1e @ereni"in"

van Auteurs# Com$onisten en Uit"evers C@%A (SA%AM) v. etlo" @& ,!is time t!e(loc"in+ order was sou+!t a+ainst a social networ"in+ site& ,!e in*unction in3uestion re3uired t!e installation o% an e9pensive +eneral monitorin+ system& ,!atsystem seems also not to !ave (een su%%iciently tested& Suc! an order was aserious imposition on t!e !ostin+ service providerHs ri+!t to conduct a (usiness& ,!eCourt !eld t!at it in%rin+ed t!e %undamental ri+!ts o% t!e users to protection o% t!eirpersonal data and t!eir %reedom to impart in%ormation in suc! circumstances) t!eri+!ts o% t!e copyri+!t owners must +ive way& #t is clear) !owever) %rom para+rap!s;1 to D1 o% t!e *ud+ment t!at it is not at all in t!e instance o% every application %oran order to prevent copyri+!t in%rin+ement t!at competin+ ri+!ts will re3uire t!ere%usal o% an in*unction in support o% copyri+!t@

,!e protection o% t!e ri+!t to intellectual property is indeed ens!rined in

.rticle1742 o% t!e C!arter o% -undamental Ri+!ts o% t!e $uropean nion45t!e C!arter& ,!ere is) !owever) not!in+ w!atsoever in t!e wordin+ o%t!at provision or in t!e CourtHs caselaw to su++est t!at t!at ri+!t isinviola(le and must %or t!at reason (e a(solutely protected &&&

.s para+rap!s 62 to 68 o% t!e *ud+ment in Case C27D/06 romusicaeA2008 $CR #271 ma"e clear) t!e protection o% t!e %undamental ri+!t toproperty) w!ic! includes t!e ri+!ts lin"ed to intellectual property) must (e(alanced a+ainst t!e protection o% ot!er %undamental ri+!ts&

ore speci%ically) it %ollows %rom para+rap! 68 o% t!at *ud+ment t!at) in t!econte9t o% measures adopted to protect copyri+!t !olders) national

aut!orities and courts must stri"e a %air (alance (etween t!e protection o%copyri+!t and t!e protection o% t!e %undamental ri+!ts o% individuals w!oare a%%ected (y suc! measures&

18


19/26

.ccordin+ly) in circumstances suc! as t!ose in t!e main proceedin+s)national aut!orities and courts must) in particular) stri"e a %air (alance(etween t!e protection o% t!e intellectual property ri+!t en*oyed (ycopyri+!t !olders and t!at o% t!e %reedom to conduct a (usiness en*oyed (yoperators suc! as !ostin+ service providers pursuant to .rticle 16 o% t!eC!arter &&&

#n t!e main proceedin+s) t!e in*unction re3uirin+ t!e installation o% t!econtested %ilterin+ system involves monitorin+ all or most o% t!e in%ormationstored (y t!e !ostin+ service provider concerned) in t!e interests o% t!oseri+!t!olders& oreover) t!at monitorin+ !as no limitation in time) is directedat all %uture in%rin+ements and is intended to protect not only e9istin+ wor"s)(ut also wor"s t!at !ave not yet (een created at t!e time w!en t!e systemis introduced&

.ccordin+ly) suc! an in*unction would result in a serious in%rin+ement o% t!e%reedom o% t!e !ostin+ service provider to conduct its (usiness since itwould re3uire t!at !ostin+ service provider to install a complicated) costly)

permanent computer system at its own e9pense) w!ic! would also (econtrary to t!e conditions laid down in .rticle '41 o% :irective 200;/;8)w!ic! re3uires t!at measures to ensure t!e respect o% intellectualpropertyri+!ts s!ould not (e unnecessarily complicated or costly &&&

#n t!ose circumstances) it must (e !eld t!at t!e in*unction to install t!econtested %ilterin+ system is to (e re+arded as not respectin+ t!ere3uirement t!at a %air (alance (e struc" (etween) on t!e one !and) t!eprotection o% t!e intellectualproperty ri+!t en*oyed (y copyri+!t !olders)and) on t!e ot!er !and) t!at o% t!e %reedom to conduct (usiness en*oyed (yoperators suc! as !ostin+ service providers &&&

oreover) t!e e%%ects o% t!at in*unction would not (e limited to t!e !ostin+

service provider) as t!e contested %ilterin+ system may also in%rin+e t!e%undamental ri+!ts o% t!at !ostin+ service providerHs service users) namelyt!eir ri+!t to protection o% t!eir personal data and t!eir %reedom to receiveor impart in%ormation) w!ic! are ri+!ts sa%e+uarded (y .rticles 8 and 11 o%t!e C!arter respectively&

#ndeed) t!e in*unction re3uirin+ installation o% t!e contested %ilterin+ systemwould involve t!e identi%ication) systematic analysis and processin+ o%in%ormation connected wit! t!e pro%iles created on t!e social networ" (y itsusers& ,!e in%ormation connected wit! t!ose pro%iles is protected personaldata (ecause) in principle) it allows t!ose users to (e identi%ied >

oreover) t!at in*unction could potentially undermine %reedom o%in%ormation) since t!at system mi+!t not distin+uis! ade3uately (etweenunlaw%ul content and law%ul content) wit! t!e result t!at its introductioncould lead to t!e (loc"in+ o% law%ul communications& #ndeed) it is notcontested t!at t!e reply to t!e 3uestion w!et!er a transmission is law%ulalso depends on t!e application o% statutory e9ceptions to copyri+!t w!ic!vary %rom one em(er State to anot!er& #n addition) in some em(er Statescertain wor"s %all wit!in t!e pu(lic domain or may (e posted online %ree o%c!ar+e (y t!e aut!ors concerned &&&

Conse3uently) it must (e !eld t!at) in adoptin+ t!e in*unction re3uirin+ t!e!ostin+ service provider to install t!e contested %ilterin+ system) t!enational court concerned would not (e respectin+ t!e re3uirement t!at a

%air (alance (e struc" (etween t!e ri+!t to intellectual property) on t!e one!and) and t!e %reedom to conduct (usiness) t!e ri+!t to protection o%

19


20/26

personal data and t!e %reedom to receive or impart in%ormation) on t!eot!er &&&

11 . series o% cases in $n+land and

12 ,!e previous year in


21/26

e9istin+ systems o% t!e intermediary t!e (alance o% (urden as to e3uipment andpersonnel and cost t!e intrusiveness o% any remedy into le+itimate privacy andentitlement to communicate and any potential data protection impin+ements)to+et!er constitute t!e main %actors in a court determinin+ w!ere t!eproportionality o% a remedy to t!e misc!ie% o% t!e improper use o% intellectualproperty online is to (e struc" or w!et!er an in*unction application is to (e re%used)

despite le+al compliance) on discretionary +rounds&

Criminal conviction

''Beyond a s!ort additional comment) t!e Court is not re3uired to considerissues as to sensitive personal in%ormation in t!e conte9t o% data processin+& ,!is!as (een %ully dealt wit! in t!e previous decision o% t!is Court& Counsel %or t!e :atarotection Commissioner su(mitted t!at an elderly lady receivin+ a letter %rom$ircom statin+ t!at someone in !er !ouse!old !ad uploaded a copyri+!t wor"wit!out aut!orisation would %ear t!at s!e was now a(out to (e prosecuted %or a

criminal o%%ence& ,!e in%rin+ement o% copyri+!t) i% done deli(erately wit! "nowled+eo% t!e copyri+!t nature o% a wor" copied) can (e a criminal o%%ence& ,!ere are lotso% criminal o%%ences& any are coterminus wit! civil lia(ility& any actions re3uireanalysis to see i% a crime !as (een committed& #% a man dies o% a !eart attac" onsomeoneHs doorstep and splits !is scalp on t!e door "no( in collapsin+) t!ediscovery o% t!at (ody (y police is not to (e assumed to (e murder& #% a stone %alls%rom t!e parapet o% t!e -our Courts (uildin+ and "ills a pedestrian on t!e pavement(elow) no criminal o%%ence is necessarily committed even t!ou+! at t!e time t!erewas a person on t!e roo% !oistin+ t!e national %la+& ,!e %all o% t!e stone could (edue to t!e (om(ardment o% t!e (uildin+ in t!e civil war o% 1=22 and a series o%severe winters loosenin+ %ra+ile mortar& #% t!e stone %ell due to t!e ne+li+ence o%t!e (uilders restorin+ t!e dome o% t!e -our Courts t!en i% a very serious %orm o%ne+lect amountin+ to criminal ne+li+ence was proved) a criminal case o%manslau+!ter would arise& #% a man pus!ed a stone onto !is enemy (elow) t!atdeli(erate act would (e murder i% t!ere(y !e intended to "ill !im or cause !imserious in*ury& #t would (e rec"less endan+erment i% !is intention was merely to+ive !im a s!oc"&

',!e receipt o% a letter (y an $ircom su(scri(er pointin+ out t!at someone!avin+ access to t!e internet !as downloaded a copyri+!t trac" or video is not analle+ation t!at t!e su(scri(er !as committed a criminal o%%ence& ,!e recordin+companies !ave no interest in see"in+ out in%ormation %rom $ircom as to w!o t!atsu(scri(er mi+!t (e& .ny serious criminal lawyer considerin+ a prosecution wouldneed to "now !ow many persons mi+!t potentially !ave !ad access to computerswit!in t!e !ouse at t!at particular time o% t!e download or upload& .n in%rin+ement

o% copyri+!t could (e accidental) could (e initiated (y an employee) remem(erin+t!at t!ere is no vicarious responsi(ility in criminal law) or (y a c!ild under t!e a+eo% responsi(ility& ,!e particular mental element must (e s!own to (e present (ycompellin+ proo%@ ot!erwise t!ere is no criminal o%%ence& ,!e :ata rotectionCommissioner seems to ta"e a clear view t!at criminal remedies s!ould (e "eptseparated %rom civil redress&

Reasons

'Section 104;4a o% t!e :ata rotection .cts 1=88200' provides t!at@ 5.nen%orcement notice s!all > speci%y any provision o% t!is .ct t!at) in t!e opinion o%t!e Commissioner) !as (een or is (ein+ contravened and t!e reasons %or !is !avin+

%ormed t!at opinion >&

21


22/26


23/26

w!ere) in t!e section !eaded 5t!e purpose o% reasons and 3uotin+ %romearlier case law) !e !eld t!at@

5#n O:/ono"1ue v. An %ord PleanlaA1==1 #&G&R&& 7D0 urp!y J&said at p& 7D7@

U#t is clear t!at t!e reason %urnis!ed (y t!e Board 4or anyot!er tri(unal must (e su%%icient %irst to ena(le t!e courts to

review it and secondly to satis%y t!e persons !avin+ recourseto t!e tri(unal t!at it !as directed its mind ade3uately to t!eissue (e%ore it& #t !as never (een su++ested t!at anadministrative (ody is (ound to provide a discursive*ud+ment as a result o% its deli(erations >H

Gi"ewise) in State (S*eene) v. Min. or t1e Environment A1=7=#&G&R&& 'D) -inlay & stated at p& '7 t!at t!e purpose o% t!ere3uirement %or reasons was@

U> to +ive > Ato an applicant suc! in%ormation as may (enecessary and appropriate %or !im) %irstly) to considerw!et!er !e !as +ot a reasona(le c!ance o% succeedin+ inappealin+ a+ainst t!e decision o% t!e plannin+ aut!ority andsecondly to ena(le !im to arm !imsel% %or t!e !earin+ o% suc!

an appeal&H8&16 #t is) o% course) t!e case t!at Eelly J&) in Mul1olland# was concernedwit! reasons re3uired to ena(le a person to consider a statutory appealwit!in t!e plannin+ system& Fowever) in Meado*s v. Minister or 'usticeA2010 2 #&R& 701) at p& 7'2) urray C&J& 4part o% t!e ma*ority in t!at casesu++ested t!at t!e %ailure o% t!e inister in 3uestion to supply ade3uatereasons meant t!at t!e applicantHs 5constitutional ri+!t o% access to t!ecourts to !ave t!e le+ality o% an administrative decision *udicially reviewedcould (e rendered eit!er pointless or so circumscri(ed as to (eunaccepta(ly ine%%ective&

+#t is clear t!at t!e a(sence o% reasons in t!e :ata rotection CommissionerHs

notice vitiates its validity& Curial de%erence cannot (e pleaded so as to provide away out o% a(idin+ (y (asic administrative law&

3lleged mis0invocation o$ 4urisdiction

%'#n see"in+ *udicial review %rom t!e Fi+! Court t!ere !as (een no a(use o% t!eremedy o% *udicial review (y t!e recordin+ companies& .n appeal is open to $ircoma+ainst t!e notice o% 11 January 2012& Io suc! appeal is automatically open to t!erecordin+ companies& ,!ey were not party to t!e notice and !ave no automaticentitlement to ma"e su(missions on it& ,!ere is no dou(t a(out t!e entitlement o%an interested party to !ave reasons %or a decision w!ic! directly a%%ects t!eireconomic interest in a su(stantial way& #n /avitt v Minister or 'ustice 4nreporteddecision o% Fi+! Court) Barron J& 8 -e(ruary 1=8= and


24/26

decision invalid as a (reac! o% *ustice&

% #t is not impressive t!at t!e :ata rotection Commissioner) w!en $ircomappealed t!at notice pursuant to statute to t!e Circuit Court) sou+!t to impede t!e*oinder o% t!e recordin+ companies& Fis reasons were a+ain costs) apparently& ,!eappeal) alt!ou+! lod+ed) !as not (een su(stantively pro+ressed (y any o% t!e

parties& #n t!e conte9t o% an application (y t!e recordin+ companies to (e *oined) (ya%%idavit dated '1 January 2012) t!e :ata rotection Commissioner swore@

# say t!at # am concerned t!at &&& t!e position is t!at t!e applicants wis! toma"e su(missions o% a +eneralised nature concernin+ unlaw%ul %iles!arin+ ordownloadin+ and/or t!e e9tent o% t!e law is caused (y suc! activities and/ort!e applicantHs opinion as to t!e proper response re3uired (y re+ulatory(odies in order to address t!ese activities& speci%ic re%erenceis made in Aan a%%idavit on (e!al% o% t!e record companies two separate

proceedin+s issued (y t!e applicants a+ainst t!e State& # say t!at i% t!is ist!e case and i% t!e said companies (ut wis! to ma"e su(missions tar+eted)ultimately) at matters %allin+ outside t!e scope o% t!e wit!in appeal or so asto in%luence t!e %uture development o% t!e law in t!is area t!en t!at issomet!in+ t!at t!ey s!ould do in t!e appropriate %orum at t!eir owne9pense and not a potential e9pense o% t!is o%%ice &&& Clearly i% t!e %ourrecord companies are permitted to participate in t!e appeal it will +reatlyadds to its len+t! and to t!e costs t!at will (e incurred (y all parties) myo%%ice included &&&

%%:urin+ t!e course o% t!is !earin+) no one could de%initively say w!at t!e scopeo% t!e appeal %rom t!e :ata rotection Commissioner to t!e Circuit Court was& Ioone could de%initively say w!at i% anyt!in+ would satis%y t!e :ata rotectionCommissioner in !is concerns apart %rom a(andonin+ t!e protocol& Bot! $ircom andt!e recordin+ companies !ave an entitlement to an ad*udication (y t!e :atarotection Commissioner in accordance wit! law& ,!is !as not occurred& Judicialreview is t!ere%ore a proper remedy& .s to w!et!er it is appropriate) t!is Court is(ound (y t!e decision in Stean v Minister or 'ustice A2001 ; #R 20' w!ere at 217)spea"in+ %or t!e Supreme Court) :en!am J stated@

Once it is determined t!at an order o% certiorari may (e +ranted) t!e courtretains a discretion in all t!e circumstances o% t!e case as to w!et!er anorder o% certiorari s!ould issue& #n considerin+ all t!e circumstances) mattersincludin+ t!e e9istence o% an alternative remedy) t!e conduct o% t!eapplicant) t!e merits o% t!e application) t!e conse3uences to t!e applicant i%

an order o% certiorari is not +ranted and t!e de+ree o% %airness o% t!eprocedures) s!ould (e wei+!ed (y t!e court in determinin+ w!et!ercertiorari is t!e appropriate remedy to attain a *ust result&

%*Similarly) in t!e earlier decision o% Mc8oldric, v An %ord PleanlaA1==7 1 #R;=7 at D0= Barron J stated t!at@

,!e real 3uestion to (e determined w!ere an appeal lies is t!e relativemerits o% an appeal as a+ainst +rantin+ relie% (y way o% *udicial review& #t isnot *ust a 3uestion w!et!er an alternative remedy e9ists or w!et!er t!eapplicant !as ta"en steps to pursue suc! remedy& ,!e true 3uestion is w!ic!is t!e more appropriate remedy considered in t!e conte9t o% common sense)t!e a(ility to deal wit! t!e 3uestions raised and principles o% %airness >

24


25/26

%+,!is Court is convinced t!at in all t!e circumstances o% t!e case t!at *udicialreview was properly and appropriately invo"ed& ,!e Court !as a discretion& ,!eCourt e9ercises t!at discretion (y statin+ t!at t!e c!oice o% *udicial review was notmisplaced) (ut was clearly re3uired on t!e %acts) and t!at le+al +uidance wasproperly sou+!t in and %rom t!e Fi+! Court&

5""osing vie6s

*',!e re+ulation o% t!e internet draws %ort! diametrically opposed views& ,!euse o% electronic communication in t!e democratic revolutions o% recent yearstesti%ies to t!e importance o% %reedom o% communication and t!at t!is may (eundermined (y any %orm o% inter%erence in internet communications& Creativity ist!e en+ine o% t!e arts industry w!ic! (rin+s us new insi+!t and re%res!ment o% t!emind in t!e %orm o% cinema and music& Copyri+!t is no less important t!an anyot!er intellectual property ri+!t& rotection o% creativity is central to t!e law o% anysound economic system& Some) as t!e ori+inal complainant in t!is case) will ta"e aview o% privacy similar to t!at apparently ta"en (y .dvocate Keneral Cru illalPnin Scarlet Extended& . creative artist desperate %or sales o% !er recorded son+s) oran inventor wis!in+ to protect a patent t!at is t!e result o% years o% committed

researc!) may not see t!e use o% t!e internet as t!e medium %or t!e (reac! o% t!eirri+!ts as an automatic answer to appropriate le+al re+ulation&

*,!ere is undou(tedly a tension (etween le+itimate e9pectations o% %reedomand t!e entitlement not to !ave overturned t!e ri+!t to reasona(le remuneration%or creative endeavor& Fowever) intellectual property ri+!ts t!at !ave (een part o%t!e le+al landscape in t!is *urisdiction since 1710) and t!at tension can only (eresolved (y considered political action& Suc! le+islation as currently (inds t!ecitiens o% t!is State) and t!e (alance w!ic! !as so %ar (een struc" (etweencopyri+!t and ot!er competin+ ri+!ts) is a matter %or administrative and *udicialimplementation& ,!e duty o% t!e courts is to apply t!at law in t!e manner in w!ic!it is %ound& #n terms o% pu(lic administration t!rou+! 3uasi*udicial decisionma"in+and t!e promul+ation o% appropriate administrative rulin+s) t!e tas" %aced isidentical and t!e re3uirement %or le+al certainty demands strict compliance&

Result

+'#n t!e result) t!e en%orcement notice o% 11 January 2012 is invalid in %ailin+ to+ive reasons& Suc! reasons as appear to underpin it) to t!e e9tent t!at t!ese can(e at all ascertained) involve a misconstruction o% t!e relevant law& ,!een%orcement notice is t!ere%ore 3uas!ed& Suc! +uidance as is appropriate is +ivenin t!is *ud+ment in t!e !ope o% providin+ some clari%ication&+# will !ear su(missions as to a stay to %acilitate an appeal to t!e SupremeCourt and as to costs and as to t!e measurement t!ereo%&

25


26/26

26

98534251 emi v data protection commissioner

Documents