On 26 November 2018, the EU
Commission initiated proceedings for infringement of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union against 17 (out of 28) Member States for
non-compliance with the Directive requiring the transposition into national law
of the Marrakesh Treaty (Directive (EU) 2017/1564).
The Marrakesh Treaty is a
WIPO-administered convention that was signed on 27 June 2013 and entered into
force on 30 September 2016. The convention seeks to facilitate “the production
and international transfer of specially-adapted books for people with blindness
or visual impairment” (
here). This was
done by creating copyright limitations and exceptions to allow the creation of
copies of protected works accessible to the visually impaired, when none is
otherwise available.
As member of both WIPO and WTO,
the EU has authority to sign and ratify treaties on behalf of its Member States
and to then require their implementation into national law via EU instruments
such as directives or regulations. In this case, the EU asked that national
legislators reform their domestic copyright law by transposing the
2017/1564
Directive of 13 September 2017. The Directive requires that all necessary
national measures be implemented by 12 October 2018. Not all member states
complied by this deadline, whereby the EU Commission introduced infringement
procedures against them for non-compliance. The list of the non-compliant
countries is as follows:
- Belgium
- Cyprus
- Czech Republic
- Germany
- Estonia
- Greece
- Finland
- France
- Italy
- Lithuania
- Luxembourg
- Latvia
- Poland
- Portugal
- Romania
- Slovenia
- UK
Indeed, both the UK and France went beyond what
was required by the EU Directive and extended the exception to all disabilities
(see
Section
31F(2)). In May 2018, the UK had launched a consultation regarding
the best approach for the implementation, concluding
that, overall, the measures taken to implement
the Treaty were satisfactory (see
Consultation
Report – September 2018).
So what went wrong?
In a word, IPKat does not know.
At the moment, the Commission has not published details regarding the claimed non-compliance
by the countries listed. We cannot assume that the non-compliance proceedings
were launched because the countries failed to introduce the exceptions in full,
because countries can also be sanctioned if the scope of the exception
implemented is too broad, so much so that it is disproportionately harmful to
the interest of rightsholders. So we will have to wait and see what part of the
implementation was deemed not up to scratch by the Commission.
Brexit means Exit …of the Marrakesh Treaty?
Not necessarily – the
overwhelming majority of respondents to the UK consultation asked that the UK
government ratify the Marrakesh in its own name, irrespective of its (current) EU
membership. Although the UK is not individually bound by the Marrakesh Treaty,
the UK government may choose to ratify and incorporate it post-Brexit in order
to maintain the rights of disabled content users.
*** Update (30 November 2018) ***
The UK Intellectual Property Office confirmed that the EU Directive was implemented in the UK on time, as required. The organisation explains that the UK was listed as non-compliant by the Commission because the Member State was yet to issue a notification of implementation, which will now happen imminently.
This Kat now wonders whether other countries are in the same position. Do comment below if you have any update or information to share with us on this topic.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteJust to point out that Portugal is misspelled. The one country that actually introduced TPM legislation this year allowing circumvention for those with disabilities. It is, in fact, very odd!
Keep up the good work!
In Estonia, the directive has transposed and came into force November 28. But true, it was still delayed.
ReplyDeleteThank Pedro for spotting the misspelling - corrected now :)
ReplyDeleteVery interesting about the TPM circumvention - looking forward to hearing more about the EU commission's proceedings.
It seems to be that a good number of countries have implemented the exception one way or another, and yet got involved in the infringement proceedings.
Maybe the reason some EU Member States that have not complied is they are investigating the notion that the Marrakesh Treaty does not comply with the "certain special case(s)" provision of the 3-step test provision in TRIPS and Berne to which the Treaty is obligated to conform.
ReplyDeleteThe eligible Marrakesh Treaty Article 3 population is well in the one billion persons range. Maybe this is also the reason why Treaty supporters, especially the World Blind Union (WBU), consistently before and after the adoption of the Treaty provided lowball estimates in the 300 million range.
Really now, is over 10% of the world's population a certain special case?
20181221 10 countrys to go https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/NIM/?uri=CELEX:32017L1564
ReplyDelete