Scarlet Extended SA โ€“ CJEU Judgment (Belgium, 2011)

CJEU Judgment
Court of Justice of the European Union24 November 2011Belgium
final
ePrivacy
CJEU Judgment

CJEU precedent (Directive 95/46/EC, pre-GDPR)

This is a Court of Justice judgment predating the GDPR. It interprets Directive 95/46/EC (the Data Protection Directive). It is not a cookie or ePrivacy case and is excluded from cookie statistics and the Risk Calculator.

Scarlet Extended SA, an internet service provider, was taken to court by SABAM for allowing users to download copyrighted material without permission. The court ruled that requiring Scarlet to block these downloads would violate privacy laws. This case highlights the balance between copyright enforcement and user privacy rights.

What happened

SABAM sued Scarlet Extended SA for not preventing users from downloading copyrighted works through peer-to-peer networks.

Who was affected

Internet users of Scarlet Extended SA who downloaded copyrighted content without authorization.

What the authority found

The Court of Justice ruled that forcing Scarlet to monitor and block downloads would breach privacy protections under EU law.

Why this matters

This ruling emphasizes that internet service providers cannot be forced to monitor user activity for copyright compliance, protecting user privacy. It sets a precedent for how copyright enforcement interacts with privacy rights.

Decision AuthorityCJEU
Reviewed AuthorityCourt of Appeal of Brussels
Source verified 11 April 2026
scope corrected
Full Legal Summary
Detailed

The Belgian Association of Authors, Composers and Publishers ('SABAM') is a collective management organisation with the goal of collecting, distributing, administrating and managing all authors' rights in Belgium and abroad. Scarlet is an Internet Service Provider ('ISP') which provides its customers with access to the internet without offering other services such as downloading or file sharing. In 2004, SABAM concluded that copyrighted works in its catalogue were being downloaded by Scarlet internet users through 'peer-to-peer networks' without authorisation or paying the royalties owed to artists. It brought proceedings against the ISP to court, claiming the company was best placed to bring measures to stop these copyright infringements. First, it sought a declaration that copyright infringements had occurred through the use of Scarlet services. Second, it sought an order requiring Scarlet to prevent these by blocking such delivery of files containing copyrighted works using peer-to-peer software. Thirdly, it requested that the ISP provide the organisation with details of the measures that it would apply to comply with the judgment. In a first judgment in 2004, the First Instance Court of Brussels held that copyright had been infringed. It nonetheless could not determine if the measures proposed by SABAM were technically feasible and appointed an expert to assess this. The appointed expert concluded that whilst there were some significant obstacles, this was feasible. In a second judgment in 2007, the court ordered the ISP to bring an end to the copyright infringements by installing a filtering and blocking system. Scarlet appealed, claiming such a system would effectively require the general surveillance of all communications passing through its system, a breach of Article 15 Directive 2000/31. Further, the company "considered that the installation of a filtering system would be in breach of the provisions of European Union law on the protection of personal dat

Outcome

CJEU Judgment

A judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union, typically on a preliminary reference from a national court.

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Scarlet Extended SA in BE

This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.

Details

Judgment Date

24 November 2011

Authority

Court of Justice of the European Union

About this data

Data: GDPRhub (noyb.eu)
Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
AI-verified and classified

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Scarlet Extended SA - Belgium (2011). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: