Scarlet Extended SA โ CJEU Judgment (Belgium, 2011)
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.
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
GDPRhub ID
gdprhub-cjeu-4079About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Scarlet Extended SA - Belgium (2011). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: