Netlog runs an online social networking platform where every person who registers acquires a personal space known as a ‘profile’ which the user can complete himself and which becomes available globally. Consequently, those rules must, in particular, respect Article 15(1) of Directive 2000/31, which prohibits national authorities from adopting measures which would require a hosting service provider to carry out general monitoring of the information that it stores (see, by analogy, Scarlet Extended, paragraph 35).

The protection of the right to intellectual property is indeed enshrined in Article 17(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’). There is, however, nothing whatsoever in the wording of that provision or in the Court’s case-law to suggest that that right is inviolable and must for that reason be absolutely protected ( Scarlet Extended, paragraph 43). Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM), by B. Michaux, F. de Visscher and F. Brison, advocaten, In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the question referred is that Directives 2000/31, 2001/29 and 2004/48, read together and construed in the light of the requirements stemming from the protection of the applicable fundamental rights, must be interpreted as precluding an injunction made against a hosting service provider which requires it to install the contested filtering system. EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights,

My Norton

For a public business entity and a not-for-profit entity that has issued, or is a conduit bond obligor for, securities that are traded, listed, or quoted on an exchange or an over-the-counter market, both of the following: Preventive monitoring of this kind would thus require active observation of files stored by users with the hosting service provider and would involve almost all of the information thus stored and all of the service users of that provider (see, by analogy, Scarlet Extended, paragraph 39). For any period in which a long-lived asset (disposal group) either has been disposed of or is classified as held for sale (see paragraph 360-10-45-9), an entity shall disclose all of the following in the notes to financial statements:

The pretax profit or loss (or change in net assets for a not-for-profit entity) of the individually significant component of an entity for the period in which it is disposed of or is classified as held for sale calculated in accordance with paragraphs 205-20-45-6 through 45-9As paragraphs 62 to 68 of the judgment in Case C‑275/06 Promusicae [2008] ECR I‑271 make clear, the protection of the fundamental right to property, which includes the rights linked to intellectual property, must be balanced against the protection of other fundamental rights. EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on electronic commerce); If the individually significant component of an entity includes a noncontrolling interest, the pretax profit or loss (or change in net assets for a not-for-profit entity) attributable to the parent for the period in which it is disposed of or is classified as held for sale and for all prior periods that are presented in the statement where net income is reported (or statement of activities for a not-for-profit entity). Member States shall provide appropriate sanctions and remedies in respect of infringements of the rights and obligations set out in this Directive and shall take all the measures necessary to ensure that those sanctions and remedies are applied. The sanctions thus provided for shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Those measures, procedures and remedies shall also be effective, proportionate and dissuasive and shall be applied in such a manner as to avoid the creation of barriers to legitimate trade and to provide for safeguards against their abuse.’

Nevertheless, the rules established by the Member States, and likewise their application by the national courts, must observe the limitations arising from Directives 2001/29 and 2004/48 and from the sources of law to which those directives refer (see Scarlet Extended, paragraph 33).

Viewpoint allows you to save up to 25 favorites.

Member States shall not impose a general obligation on providers, when providing the services covered by Articles 12, 13 and 14, to monitor the information which they transmit or store, nor a general obligation actively to seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity. Accordingly, such an injunction would result in a serious infringement of the freedom of the hosting service provider to conduct its business since it would require that hosting service provider to install a complicated, costly, permanent computer system at its own expense, which would also be contrary to the conditions laid down in Article 3(1) of Directive 2004/48, which requires that measures to ensure the respect of intellectual-property rights should not be unnecessarily complicated or costly (see, by analogy, Scarlet Extended, paragraph 48). next, that it determine which of those files are being stored and made available to the public unlawfully; and Documents\STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition\Samples\ Verification Models\09 Steel Design\US\AISC\AISC 360-10 Tapered I Section.STD