ECJ – cearta.ie

The Communications (Retention of Data) (Amendment) Act 2022: ignore the warnings, legislate in haste, repent at leisure

7 March, 202310 March, 2023

The headline in the Irish Examiner is stark: “European Commission says Ireland’s new data law may be ‘inapplicable’.” Cianan Brennan reports that the European Commission “has dismissed Ireland’s new controversial data retention law as possibly ‘inapplicable and unenforceable’, as it was not submitted to the commission before its enactment”. The legislation in question is the Communications (Retention of Data) (Amendment) Act 2022; and it was, as Brennan says, rushed through the Oireachtas last summer with minimal scrutiny.

It is worth pausing for a moment to see where the Act came from, and to consider why it was so rushed. The Department of Justice repeatedly failed to take the right path, even as it has had plenty of opportunity to do so. When it finally did something, it acted hastily; and it now seems that the hasty solution hasn’t worked.

The legal story starts on 27 March 2015, when Graham Dwyer was convicted of murdering Elaine O’Hara in 2012. Much of the evidence had been gathered pursuant to Section 6(1) of the Communications (Retention of Data) Act 2011 (also here), which provides:

A member of the Garda Síochána not below the rank of chief superintendent may request a service provider to disclose to that member data retained by the service provider in accordance with section 3 where that member is satisfied that the data are required for—

(a) the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of a serious offence, …

That Act had been introduced to implement the Data Retention Directive (Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (OJ 2006 L 105, 13.4.2006, p.…

Tá stair déanta maidin Lá Fhéile Pádraig i gCúirt Bhreithiúnais an Aontais Eorpaigh

17 March, 2021

| No Comments

| Courts, ECJ, Gaeilge

Rinneadh stair maidin inniú, nuair ar thug Cúirt Bhreithiúnais an Aontais Eorpaigh síos a chéad bhreithiúnas as Gaeilge. I gCás C-64/20 UH v An tAire Talmhaíochta, Bia agus Mara, Éire agus An tArd-Aighne, chinn an chúirt go bhfuil sé de cheangal ar chúirt de chuid Ballstáit leas a bhaint as an gcumhacht arna deonú di faoin dlí náisiúnta chun dearbhú breithiúnach a ghlacadh ina sonrófar nár thrasuigh an Stát sin treoir de chuid an Aontais Eorpaigh i gceart agus go bhfuil sé de cheangal air é sin a leigheas. Tá an breithiúnas iomlán as Gaeilge anseo. Sa físeán sa tvuít thíos, tá an Breitheamh Ríagáin ag fógairt achoimre ar bhreithiúnas na Cúirte:

Dúradh gur comhtharlú sona é gur tugadh an breithiúnas stairiúil seo ar Lá Fhéile Pádraig – beannachtaí na féile daoibh go léir!…

There’s no guarantee Ireland’s new Brexit case will get the referral it wants

11 December, 20162 January, 2017

| No Comments

| ECJ, Irish cases

It’s not everyday that the prospect of an action in the Irish High Court makes worldwide headlines. But a case about the mechanism by which a member state can depart from the European Union is doing just that.

The background lies in last June’s referendum in the United Kingdom, in which the majority voted leave the EU. As a matter of European law, the departure process is provided in Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. The UK Prime Minister, Theresa May, has stated repeatedly that she wants to begin this process before the end of March next year, and the House of Commons on Wednesday voted to approve this timetable.

The Article 50 process is a recent enough creation. It was inserted into the Treaty by the Treaty of Lisbon in 2007, and it came into force in 2009. It provides that a departing state must notify the European Council of its intention to leave; and it gives the EU and the departing state two years to negotiate the departure arrangements. But the departure of a state from the EU hasn’t happened before; so we are in uncharted waters, both politically and legally; and ambiguities in the text of Article 50 don’t help.…

Article 50 in the Irish High Court: cometh the hour, cometh the case?

29 November, 20163 January, 2017

| 3 Comments

| ECJ, Irish cases

It is a rare provision of a Treaty, or a constitution, or an Act, that achieves fame or notoriety simply by means of its number. The First Amendment is so famous the world over that we do not need to be told that it is a clause in the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution. Section 31 was once just as notorious in Ireland. Rapidly joining this pantheon is Article 50. It is an Article of the Treaty on European Union, inserted by the Treaty of Lisbon, to provide a mechanism by which a Member State may withdraw from the EU. It has been plucked from the obscurity of an EU Treaty and thrust into the glare of worldwide headlines by the UK referendum on 23 June 2016 in which the majority of participants voted to leave the EU.

The interpretation of Article 50 has provoked much political and legal discussion, but little consensus. Indeed, I have commented twice on this blog (here and here) on the question whether a notice served by the UK under that Article may be suspended or withdrawn. Only the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) can answer that question authoritatively.…

Exhausting exhaustion – the limits of the first sale doctrine in EU copyright law

12 October, 201620 October, 2016

| 1 Comment

| Copyright, ECJ

The exhaustion of intellectual property [IP] rights by the first sale of the protected work is a fundamental principle of IP law. Where a work or product covered by an IP right is sold by the rightholder, that IP right is exhausted in the sense that it can no longer be exercised by the rightholder to prevent the purchaser from selling or lending the work or product to a third party. For example, Article 4(2) of the Software Directive (Directive 2009/24/EC) provides

The first sale in the Community of a copy of a program by the rightholder or with his consent shall exhaust the distribution right within the Community of that copy, …

Article 4(2) of the InfoSoc Directive (Directive 2001/29/EC) is in similar terms. In Case C-166/15 Ranks and Vasilevics, the Court of Justice of the European Union [CJEU] explored the limits of this rule, and established the point at which the exhaustion doctrine is itself exhausted. As to the rule, the CJEU held:

The holder of the copyright in a computer program who has sold, in the EU, a copy of that program on a material medium (such as a CD-ROM or a DVD-ROM) with an unlimited user licence can no longer oppose the subsequent resale of that copy by the initial acquirer or subsequent acquirers of that copy, notwithstanding the existence of contractual terms prohibiting any further transfer.

…

Some forthcoming legislation on the administration of justice, cybercrime, education, intellectual property, and privacy

28 September, 201629 September, 2016

| 4 Comments

| Blasphemy, Copyright, Cyberlaw, Digital Rights, ECJ, Intellectual property, Judicial Appointments, Legal Education, Privacy, Universities

Government Chief Whip Regina Doherty has announced the Government’s Legislation Programme for the Autumn Session 2016 (pdf). It is a considerable update of the programme published last June (pdf) when the government came into office.

The June programme had the feel of a holding document, published to get a new government to the Summer Recess. This programme has a far more substantial feel about, published to demonstrate the government’s confidence in its capacity to promote and enact legislation.

After the publication of the June programme, I examined proposed legislation from the Department of Education and Skills (here; and see also here), the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (here; and see also here and here), and the Department of Justice and Equality (here and here). Under those headings, very little has changed. But there are some notable additions, not least of which is the Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunications Messages (Regulation) (Amendment) Bill. All we are told is that work is underway on a Bill to “amend various pieces of legislation in respect of electronic communications”. There is no further explanation. This is probably the Bill to provide for further covert surveillance of electronic communications promised by the Minister earlier this Summer.…

Is Article 50 a one-way street; can a withdrawing State stop on it, or reverse out of it?

30 June, 20161 July, 2016

| 3 Comments

| ECJ

In an earlier post, I argued that there may be an Article 50 route to a second Brexit referendum and the UK remaining in the EU. It has been a small drop in the online torrent of serious analysis of the legal and political consequences of last week’s referendum. My must-reads include Mark Elliott, the UK Constitutional Law Association’s blog, the LSE’s BrexitVote blog, the Brexit Reflections on the blog of the Centre on Constitutional Change in the University of Edinburgh, and the Brexit and Article 50 streams on the always excellent Conversation. It was there that I read a great piece by Phil Syrpis entitled Once the UK triggers Article 50 to start Brexit, can it turn back?. He asks whether the UK can have second thoughts stop the Article 50 process, and he comments

It seems staggering that there is no clear answer to this key legal question.

I could not agree more. Nevertheless, even if there is no clear answer, a consensus does seem to be emerging. In my last post, I said that the House of Lords’ European Committee Paper on The process of withdrawing from the European Union (11th Report of Session 2015–16; HL Paper 138; html | pdf) is an excellent guide to the legal mechanics of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.…