CJEU - C-597/19 - M.I.C.M.

From GDPRhub
Revision as of 15:08, 17 June 2021 by Cvl (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{CJEUdecisionBOX |Case_Number_Name=C-597/19 M.I.C.M. |ECLI=ECLI:EU:C:2021:492 |Opinion_Link= |Judgement_Link=http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
CJEU - C-597/19 M.I.C.M.
Cjeulogo.png
Court: CJEU
Jurisdiction: European Union
Relevant Law: Article 6(1)(f) GDPR
Decided: 17.06.2021
Parties: Mircom International Content Management & Consulting (M.I.C.M.) Limited
Proximus NV
Telenet BVBA
Scarlet Belgium NV
Case Number/Name: C-597/19 M.I.C.M.
European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2021:492
Reference from:
Language: 24 EU Languages
Original Source: Judgement
Initial Contributor: n/a


in progress

English Summary

Facts

A content management company (Mircom) submitted a request for information against Telenet, an internet service provider, to a Belgian Court. The request sought a decision requiring Telenet to produce the identification data of its customers on the basis of IP addresses collected, by a specialised company, on behalf of Mircom. The internet connections of Telenet’s customers had been used to share films in the Mircom catalogue, on a peer-to-peer network, using the BitTorrent protocol. Telenet challenged the request.

The Belgian court submitted a request for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU.

First, it asked the Court whether the sharing of pieces of a media file containing a protected work on that network constitutes a communication to the public under EU law. Next, it sought to ascertain whether the holder of intellectual property rights, such as Mircom, which does not use them, but claims damages for alleged infringements, can benefit from the measures, procedures and remedies provided for by EU law in order to ensure that those rights are enforced, for example by requesting information. Finally, the referring court asked the Court of Justice to clarify the question of the lawfulness, first, of the way in which the customers’ IP addresses have been collected by Mircom and, second, of the communication of the data requested by Mircom from Telenet.

Dispute

Holding

in progress

Comment

Share your comments here!

Further Resources

Share blogs or news articles here!