Explore

(1) The Court had to answer the question whether an internet service provider could be required to install a filtering system with a view to preventing the illegal downloading of files. (2) The Court confirmed the possibility of introducing an injunction based on copyright infringement against an access provider even if said provider can benefit from the liability exemption regime provided for in the eCommerce Directive. The injunction does not presuppose any prior finding of fault, and therefore liability, on the part of the intermediary. (3) However, if the theoretical possibility of a blocking order against ISPs was confirmed, it remained to be seen if the provider has, in fact, the material possibility to comply with such an order. The Court ordered an expert testimony on this subject and the reopening of the...

including Article 87 implementing Article 8.2 of the Infosoc Directive of 2001 which states that “Member States shall ensure that rightholders are in a position to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe a copyright or related right.” Note that this Law has been now codfied and inserted in the Book XI of the Belgian Commercial Law codification, which will enter into force on January, 1 2015

In its report filed January, 3 2007, the expert witness presented 11 solutions that can be applied to block or filter file sharing, including 7 applicable to Scarlet/Tiscali. On the basis of this report and the submissions of the parties, the Court ruled that technical solutions do exist to stop copyright infringements of music files via P2P file sharing. Accordingly, the Court ordered Scarlet to implement such measures to prevent future damage, within a period of time of six months and under a penalty of a fine of 2,500 euros per day of violation. Scarlet was also ordered to provide SABAM a description of the measures taken.

The Court rejected the request of blocking eight "ThePirateBay" websites and other “ThePirateBay” websites extensions. The request was filed against two of the biggest Belgian Internet providers, Telenet and Belgacom. The Court rejected the request by arguing that ThePirateBay was online for a long time without a judicial reaction of the Belgian Anti-Piracy Federation (BAPF), and it was unclear which rights BAPF claimed to have been infringed.