Browsing by Subject "fundamental rights"
Now showing items 1-2 of 2
-
(2024)The new Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSM Directive) was the pillar of the copyright package developed as part of the plan for an EU-wide copyright reform. This came as a response to the weaknesses observed in the existing framework, and aims to fill in the gaps of intermediary liability rules for online distribution of copyright protected works. The safe harbour provisions in the E-Commerce Directive in particular had left a dangerous loophole by allowing online content-sharing service providers (OCSSPs) to escape liability for infringing content on their platforms. Article 17 DSM intends to solve this issue by introducing a ‘specific liability mechanism’ that establishes an act of communication to the public for OCSSPs, unless they have satisfied the ‘best efforts’ criteria provided for in the article. While trying to achieve a clear objective, Article 17 raised several concerns regarding user protection as well as coherency with existing EU legislation, and was widely criticised for being too ambiguous to ensure an accurate interpretation of its autonomous concepts. The reference to automated recognition technology (i.e. upload filters) was particularly debated for its fundamental rights implications, and although the Polish challenge to the validity of Article 17 was rejected by the European Court of Justice (CJEU), the lack of legislative clarity played a large role in the delays to transpose the article into national legislation. This uncertainty resulted in a segmented implementation of the new liability rules, many of which threaten the purpose of the provision and the DSM Directive as a whole. This research intends to provide a comprehensive overview of the controversy surrounding Article 17 of the DSM Directive and observes how the nature and complexity of the article has influenced Member State transposition. The research shows specifically that Member States have divided into literal (traditional) transposition and elaboration (innovative) transposition, France and the Netherlands representing examples of the former method and Germany and Spain as examples of the latter method. Finland is included as an interesting example of implementation influenced by external political factors. Through this, the thesis asks to what extent the selected elements of Member State transpositions are compatible with the DSM Directive and which approach to transposition is most appropriate for the adoption of Article 17 into national legislation. The research determines that all selected Member States produced laws that were at risk of incorrect transposition, and ultimately finds that literal transposition is the more suitable option for the transposition of Article 17, based on an analysis of legislative and practical efficiency, EU-compatibility, and Member State discretion.
-
(2021)Health apps that are used by individuals in multiple ways to improve their health and wellbeing are promoted as empowering the individual to control their health. Their increasing use means that they also gather more data concerning the health of the users. This data could be used for research or other public interest purposes, but its availability for secondary use is limited. In the EU there is also political interest to both increase availability of personal data in the inner market, as well as facilitate the use of eHealth solutions, including health apps. In this thesis, I will use legal dogmatics as a method to analyse how health apps could be used to gather data for public interest purposes. I look at what type of data is gathered by the health apps and why it is useful, how the GDPR sets criteria for the gathering of data through the apps and it’s secondary use, and how in special cases of research and other public interests, the rights of the data subject can be derogated. I will also compare this to the planned regulatory framework for data sharing, of the proposal for the Data Governance Act has been published. The main conclusion of the thesis is that that the framework for processing data for public interest purposes does not, in most cases, suit either gathering data by health apps, or secondary use of this data. This is both because the public interest as a processing basis needs to be based on law and needs to be balanced similar to a limitation of fundamental rights in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. This approach would in most cases be too heavy for this purpose. Instead, the processing is mainly possible on a consent basis. This could, even with the possibility of easier mechanisms for data sharing through data altruism organisations, affect the quality of the data gained, as the willingness to share data – and to even use a health app - vary between different demographic groups.
Now showing items 1-2 of 2