![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
Abstract
Through case-law research, this paper critically assesses the compatibility of the Digital Economy Act 2010 (DEA) subscriber appeal process provisions (Section 13 of the DEA) with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Drawing on the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case-law, Ofcom's Initial Obligations Code (the Code), and the DEA judicial review decision, namely, BT PLC and Talk Talk PLC v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills and others, this paper focuses on the three Strasbourg Court principles of equality of arms, admissibility of evidence, and presumption of innocence, in an effort to determine whether Section 13 of the DEA infringes them, and whether this constitutes a breach of a subscriber's right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the ECHR. The paper examines these three ECtHR principles. It contrasts such principles with the Code's provisions, and considers the compatibility of Section 13 of the DEA with Article 6 of the ECHR. It concludes that the DEA subscriber appeal process provisions do indeed infringe these principles, thus constituting a violation of subscribers' right to a fair trial. It also recommends that the UK government start taking seriously human rights in general, and Article 6 of the ECHR in particular.
Notes
1. Ofcom. “Online Infringement of Copyright and the Digital Economy Act 2010 – Notice of Ofcom's Proposal to Make by Order a Code for Regulating the Initial Obligations.” Accessed 15 September 2013. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/online-notice/summary/notice.pdf, p. 2.
2. Ibid., 7.
3. Ofcom. “Digital Economy Act Online Copyright Infringement Appeals Process – Options for Reducing Costs.” Accessed 15 September 2013. http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/Ofcom-appeals_cost_advice_with_redactions.pdf, p. 8.
4. European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Article 6.
5. Benthem v the Netherlands (App no 8848/80) (1985) 8 EHRR 1 [32].
6. See Sections 7(9) and 12(4) of the DEA.
7. Roche v the United Kingdom (App no 32555/96) (2006) 42 EHRR 30 [117].
8. ‘in this section “owner-provider dispute” means a dispute that – (a) is between persons who are copyright owners or internet service providers; and (b) relates to an act or omission in relation to an initial obligation or an initial obligations code’ see Section 7(9) of the DEA.
9. ‘in this section “owner-provider dispute” means a dispute that – (a) is between persons who are copyright owners or internet service providers; and (b) relates to an act or omission in relation to a technical obligation or a technical obligations code’ see Section 12(4) of the DEA.
10. Ringeisen v Austria (App no 2614/65) (1971) 1 EHRR 455 [117].
11. Baraona v Portugal (App no 10092/82) (1987) ECHR 13 [44]; Zimmermann and Steiner v Switzerland (App no 8737/79) (1983) 6 EHRR 17 [22].
12. ‘where the appeal is determined in favour of the subscriber, to direct the copyright owner or internet service provider to reimburse the reasonable costs of the subscriber’ see Section 13(7)(b) of the DEA.
13. Engel and others v the Netherlands (App no 5100/71, 5101/71, 5102/71, 5354/72, 5370/72) (1976) 1 EHRR 647.
14. Ibid., [82].
15. Ofcom. “Online Infringement of Copyright and the Digital Economy Act 2010 – Notice of Ofcom's Proposal to Make by Order a Code for Regulating the Initial Obligations.” Accessed 15 September 2013. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/online-notice/summary/notice.pdf, p. 62.
16. Dombo Beheer BV v The Netherlands (App no 14448/88) (1993) 18 EHRR 213 [33]; Ankerl v Switzerland (App no 17748/91) (1996) ECHR 45 [38]; Bulut v Austria (App no 17358/90) (1996) ECHR 10 [47]; Niderost-Huber v Switzerland (App no 18990/91) (1997) ECHR [23].
17. Schenk v Switzerland (App no 10862/84) (1988) 13 EHRR 242 [46]; Peck and JH v United Kingdom (App no 44787/98) (2001) 46 EHRR 51 [76]; Khan v United Kingdom (App no 35394/97) (2000) ECHR 2000-V [34].
18. Barberà, Messegue and Jabardo v Spain (App no10590/83) (1988) 11 EHRR 360 [77].
19. Dombo Beheer BV v The Netherlands (App no 14448/88) (1993) 18 EHRR 213 [33]; Ankerl v Switzerland (App no 17748/91) (1996) ECHR 45 [38]; Bulut v Austria (App no 17358/90) (1996) ECHR 10 [47]; Niderost-Huber v Switzerland (App no 18990/91) (1997) ECHR [23].
20. Neumeister v Austria (App no 1936/63) (1968) 1 EHRR 191 [22].
21. The Digital Economy Act 2010 Section 13, see in particular, Section 13 3(a), Section 13 3(b), Section 13 6(a), Section 13 6(b); see also Electronic Communications – The Online Infringement of Copyright (Initial Obligations Code) Order 20XX Section 25.
22. BIS. “Digital Economy Bill Online Infringement of Copyright: Detail Regarding Clauses 4–16.” (January 2010). Accessed 15 September 2013. http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/BISCore/corporate/docs/digital-britain/factsheets/Online-infringement-Copyright-clauses-4-16.pdf, pp. 5–6.
23. Ofcom. “Online Infringement of Copyright and the Digital Economy Act 2010 – Notice of Ofcom's proposal to Make by Order a Code for Regulating the Initial Obligations.” Accessed 15 September 2013. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/online-notice/summary/notice.pdf, p. 74.
24. Ibid., 71 and 74.
25. Ibid., 75.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid., 7.
29. Digital Economy Act 2010 Section 13(10)(a).
30. BT PLC and Talk Talk PLC v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills and others [2011] EWHC 1021 (Admin).
31. Ibid., [235].
32. Ibid.
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid.
35. Shipman, S. 2006. “Steel & Morris v United Kingdom: legal aid in the European Court of Human Rights.” Civil Justice Quarterly volume 25 page 5.
36. Rubenstein, W. 2002. “The Concept of Equality in Civil Procedure.” Cardozo Law Review volume 23 page 26.
37. Ibid., 39.
38. Dombo Beheer BV v The Netherlands (App no 14448/88) (1993) 18 EHRR 213 [33].
39. Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Exercise Commissioners [1974] AC 133.
40. Ofcom. “Online Infringement of Copyright and the Digital Economy Act 2010 – Notice of Ofcom's Proposal to Make by Order a Code for Regulating the Initial Obligations.” Accessed 15 September 2013. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/online-notice/summary/notice.pdf, p. 62.
41. Ibid., 75.
42. Ibid., 74.
43. Advocate General's Opinion in Case 275/06 Productores de Musica de Espana (Promusicae) v Telefonica de Espana SAU [2008] ECR I-271 [AG 114], [AG 115].
44. ‘that the ISP account has been incorrectly identified as one through which acts of alleged copyright infringement have occurred’ see Memorandum of Understanding of 6 July 2011 p. 26.
45. ‘that the alleged activity was the result of the unauthorized use of the subscriber's account of which the subscriber was unaware and that the subscriber could not reasonably have prevented’ Ibid.
46. ‘that the use of the work made by the subscriber was authorized by its copyright owner’ Ibid.
47. ‘that the subscriber's reproducing the copyrighted work(s) and distributing it/them over a P2P network is defensible as a fair use’ Ibid.
48. ‘that the file in question does not consist primarily of the alleged copyrighted work at issue’ Ibid.
49. ‘that the alleged copyrighted work was published prior to 1923’ Ibid.
50. Pelladoah v the Netherlands (App no 16737/90) (1994) 19 EHRR 81[34].
51. Ekbatani v Sweden (App no 10563/83) (1988) 13 EHRR 504 [32]; see also Mole, N., and C. Harby. 2006. The Right to a Fair Trial a Guide to the Implementation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 21. Council of Europe.
52. Ofcom. “Online Infringement of Copyright and the Digital Economy Act 2010 – Notice of Ofcom's Proposal to Make by Order a Code for Regulating the Initial Obligations.” Accessed 2 June 2013. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/online-notice/summary/notice.pdf, p. 75.
53. Digital Economy Act 2010 c. 24 Explanatory Note [73].
54. Ofcom, “Online Infringement of Copyright and the Digital Economy Act 2010 – Notice of Ofcom's proposal to Make by Order a Code for Regulating the Initial Obligations.” Accessed 15 September 2013. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/online-notice/summary/notice.pdf, p. 7.
55. Digital Economy Act 2010 Section 13(10)(a).
56. Borgers v Belgium (App no 12005/86) (1991) 15 EHRR 92 [29].
57. Digital Economy Act 2010 Section 13, see in particular Section 13 6(a) and Section 13 6(b); see also Electronic Communications – The Online Infringement of Copyright (Initial Obligations Code) Order 20XX Section 25.
58. BIS, “Digital Economy Bill Online Infringement of Copyright: Detail Regarding Clauses 4–16.” (January 2010). Accessed 15 September 2013. http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/BISCore/corporate/docs/digital-britain/factsheets/Online-infringement-Copyright-clauses-4-16.pdf, pp. 5–6
59. Advocate General's Opinion in Case 275/06 Productores de Musica de Espana (Promusicae) v Telefonica de Espana SAU [2008] ECR I-271 [AG 115].
60. Golden Eye (International) Limited and others v Telefonica UK Limited [2012] EWHC 723 (Ch) [103].
61. Ibid.
62. Schenk v Switzerland (App no 10862/84) (1988) 13 EHRR 242 [46]; Peck and JH v United Kingdom (App no 44787/98) (2001) 46 EHRR 51 [76]; Khan v United Kingdom (App no 35394/97) (2000) ECHR 2000-V [34].
63. Schenk v Switzerland (App no 10862/84) (1988) 13 EHRR 242.
64. Ibid., [47].
65. BT PLC and Talk Talk Telecom Group PLC v Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport and others [2012] EWCA Civ 232 Case No: C1/2011/1437.
66. Ofcom, “Online Infringement of Copyright and the Digital Economy Act 2010 – Notice of Ofcom's proposal to Make by Order a Code for Regulating the Initial Obligations.” Accessed 15 September 2013 http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/online-notice/summary/notice.pdf, p. 44.
67. Ibid., 45.
68. Ibid., 46.
69. Ibid.
70. Ibid.
71. Ibid.
72. Ibid.
73. Directive 95/46 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data [1995] OJ L281/31 Article 8(1).
74. Ibid., Article 8(2)(e).
75. Data Protection Act 1998, Schedule 3 paragraph 6(c).
76. BT PLC and Talk Talk Telecom Group PLC v Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport and others [2012] EWCA Civ 232 Case No: C1/2011/1437.
77. Ibid., [75].
78. Ibid.
79. Ibid., [77].
80. Schenk v Switzerland (App no 10862/84) (1988) 13 EHRR 242.
81. Peck and JH v the United Kingdom (App no 44787/98) (2001) 46 EHRR 51.
82. Khan v the United Kingdom (App no 35394/97) (2000) ECHR 2000-V.
83. Schenk v Switzerland (App no 10862/84) (1988) 13 EHRR 242 [47]; Peck and JH v the United Kingdom (App no 44787/98) (2001) 46 EHRR 51 [77], [78]; Khan v the United Kingdom (App no 35394/97) (2000) ECHR 2000-V [35], [36].
84. Schenk v Switzerland (App no 10862/84) (1988) 13 EHRR 242 [47]; Peck and JH v the United Kingdom (App no 44787/98) (2001) 46 EHRR 51 [77], [79]; Khan v the United Kingdom (App no 35394/97) (2000) ECHR 2000-V [35].
85. Schenk v Switzerland (App no 10862/84) (1988) 13 EHRR 242 [48]; Peck and JH v the United Kingdom (App no 44787/98) (2001) 46 EHRR 51 [77], [79]; Khan v the United Kingdom (App no 35394/97) (2000) ECHR 2000-V [35], [37].
86. Schenk v Switzerland (App no 10862/84) (1988) 13 EHRR 242 [47].
87. Ofcom, “Online Infringement of Copyright and the Digital Economy Act 2010 – Notice of Ofcom's proposal to Make by Order a Code for Regulating the Initial Obligations.” Accessed 15 September 2013. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/online-notice/summary/notice.pdf, p. 46.
88. European Data Protection Supervisor, “EDPS Response to the Commission's Consultation on its Report on the Application of IPRED.” (8 April 2011) Accessed 2 June 2013. http://www.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/Consultation/Comments/2011/11-04-2011_IPRED_EN.pdf, p. 3.
89. Ibid.
90. Advocate General's Opinion in Case 275/06 Productores de Musica de Espana (Promusicae) v Telefonica de Espana SAU [2008] ECR I-271.
91. Ibid., [AG 53].
92. Schenk v Switzerland (App no 10862/84) (1988) 13 EHRR 242 [47].
93. Ofcom, “Online Infringement of Copyright and the Digital Economy Act 2010 – Notice of Ofcom's Proposal to Make by Order a Code for Regulating the Initial Obligations.” Accessed 15 September 2013. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/online-notice/summary/notice.pdf, p. 45; see also the Digital Economy Act 2010 Section 13(3)(a); Electronic Communications – The Online Infringement of Copyright (Initial Obligations Code) Order 20XX Section 25.
94. See Sections 29, 30 and 178 of the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988.
95. Memorandum of Understanding of 6 July 2011 p. 26.
96. Case 70-10 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2012] ECDR 4 [52]; see also case 360-10 Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v Netlog NV [2012] ECR I-0000 [50]; for an in depth-analysis of these cases see Romero Moreno, F. 2013. “Unblocking the Digital Economy Act 2010; Human Rights Issues in the UK.” International Review of Law, Computers & Technology 27: 18–45.
97. Schenk v Switzerland (App no 10862/84) (1988) 13 EHRR 242 [48].
98. Ofcom, “Online Infringement of Copyright and the Digital Economy Act 2010 – Notice of Ofcom's proposal to Make by Order a Code for Regulating the Initial Obligations.” Accessed 15 September 2013. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/online-notice/summary/notice.pdf, p. 46.
99. Stroz Friedberg, “Independent Expert Assessment of MarkMonitor Antipiracy Methodologies” (1 November 2012) p. 5.
100. Statement by Dr Richard Clayton (Personal correspondence 2 October 2012). Accessed 2 June 2013. http://www.openrightsgroup.org/assets/files/pdfs/02102012%20Ltr%20to%20Consumer%20Focus.pdf, p. 2.
101. Case 324/09 L'Oréal SA and others v eBay International AG and others [2011] ECR I-0000 [122].
102. Ofcom, “Online Infringement of Copyright and the Digital Economy Act 2010 – Notice of Ofcom's Proposal to Make by Order a Code for Regulating the Initial Obligations.” Accessed 15 September 2013. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/online-notice/summary/notice.pdf, p. 46.
103. Barberà, Messegue and Jabardo v Spain (App no10590/83) (1988) 11 EHRR 360 [77].
104. Salabiaku v France (App no 10519/83) (1988) 13 EHRR 379 [28].
105. Ibid.
106. BT PLC and Talk Talk PLC v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills and others [2011] EWHC 1021 (Admin).
107. Ofcom, “Online Infringement of Copyright and the Digital Economy Act 2010 – Notice of Ofcom's Proposal to Make by Order a Code for Regulating the Initial Obligations.” Accessed 15 September 2013. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/online-notice/summary/notice.pdf, p. 68.
108. Ibid.
109. Ibid., 69.
110. Ibid., 75.
111. Ibid., 44.
112. Ibid.
113. Ibid., 45; though not mentioned in the Code, an important thing to note here is that this standard is certainly lower than the civil standard of proof ‘on the balance of probabilities’ and the criminal standard of proof ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’.
114. Ibid., 51.
115. Ibid., 53.
116. Ibid.
117. Ibid.
118. BT PLC and Talk Talk PLC v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills and others [2011] EWHC 1021 (Admin).
119. Ibid., [238].
120. Ibid.
121. Ibid.
122. Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Exercise Commissioners [1974] AC 133.
123. BT PLC and Talk Talk PLC v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills and others [2011] EWHC 1021 (Admin) [238].
124. Salabiaku v France (App no 10519/83) (1988) 13 EHRR 379 [28].
125. Ibid.
126. Ofcom, “Online Infringement of Copyright and the Digital Economy Act 2010 – Notice of Ofcom's Proposal to Make by Order a Code for Regulating the Initial Obligations.” Accessed 15 September 2013. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/online-notice/summary/notice.pdf, p. 62.
127. Salabiaku v France (App no 10519/83) (1988) 13 EHRR 379 [28].
128. Ofcom, “Online Infringement of Copyright and the Digital Economy Act 2010 – Notice of Ofcom's Proposal to Make by Order a Code for Regulating the Initial Obligations.” Accessed 15 September 2013. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/online-notice/summary/notice.pdf, p. 44.
129. Advocate General's Opinion in Case 275/06 Productores de Musica de Espana (Promusicae) v Telefonica de Espana SAU [2008] ECR I-271 [AG 121].
130. Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EU) of 24 April 2012 ‘on the proposal for a Council Decision on the Conclusion of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Mexican States, the Kingdom of Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Singapore, the Swiss Confederation and the United States of America’ [2012] in paragraph 25.
131. European Data Protection Supervisor, “EDPS Response to the Commission's Consultation on its Report on the Application of IPRED.” (8 April 2011) Accessed 2 June 2013. http://www.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/Consultation/Comments/2011/11-04-2011_IPRED_EN.pdf, p. 3.
132. Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EU) of 24 April 2012 ‘on the proposal for a Council Decision on the Conclusion of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Mexican States, the Kingdom of Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Singapore, the Swiss Confederation and the United States of America’ [2012] in paragraph 25.
133. Stroz Friedberg. “Independent Expert Assessment of MarkMonitor Antipiracy Methodologies” (1 November 2012) p. 2.
134. Ibid., 7.
135. Salabiaku v France (App no 10519/83) (1988) 13 EHRR 379 [28].
136. Ofcom, “Online Infringement of Copyright and the Digital Economy Act 2010 – Notice of Ofcom's proposal to Make by Order a Code for Regulating the Initial Obligations.” Accessed 15 September 2013. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/online-notice/summary/notice.pdf, p. 44.
137. Case 461/10 Bonnier Audio AB, Earbooks AB, Norstedts Förlagsgrupp AB, Piratförlaget AB, Storyside AB v Perfect Communication Sweden AB [2012] 2 CMLR 42 [58].
138. Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EU) of 5 June 2010 ‘on the current negotiations by the European Union of an Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)’ [2010] OJ C147 in paragraph 32.
139. S and Marper v the United Kingdom (App no 30562/04 and 30566/04) (2008) ECHR 1581[122].
140. Salabiaku v France (App no 10519/83) (1988) 13 EHRR 379 [28].
141. Ofcom, “Online Infringement of Copyright and the Digital Economy Act 2010 – Notice of Ofcom's Proposal to Make by Order a Code for Regulating the Initial Obligations.” Accessed 15 September 2013. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/online-notice/summary/notice.pdf, p. 53.
142. Consumer Focus, “Online traceability: who did that? Technical expert report on collecting robust evidence of copyright infringement through peer-to-peer file-sharing Dr Richard Clayton” (26 July 2012) p. 26.
143. Golden Eye (International) Limited and others v Telefonica UK Limited [2012] EWHC 723 (Ch) [103].
144. Consumer Focus, “Online traceability: who did that? Technical expert report on collecting robust evidence of copyright infringement through peer-to-peer file-sharing Dr Richard Clayton” (26 July 2012) p. 26.
145. EMI Records (Ireland) Ltd and others v the Data Protection Commissioner [2012] IEHC 264.
146. Ibid., [1.0], [1.3].
147. BT, TalkTalk, Virgin, BSkyB, 02 and Everything Everywhere.
148. Department for Business Innovation and Skills and Department for Culture Media and Sport, “Digital Economy Act 2010; Impact Assessments.” Accessed 15 September 2013. http://www.ialibrary.bis.gov.uk/uploaded/Digital-Economy-Act-IAs-final.pdf, p. 56.
149. Ofcom, “Digital Economy Act Online Copyright Infringement Appeals Process – Options for Reducing Costs.” Accessed 15 September 2013. http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/Ofcom-appeals_cost_advice_with_redactions.pdf, p. 31.
150. Ibid., 12.
151. The National Council for Civil Liberties, “Liberty's Report Stage Briefing on the Digital Economy Bill in the House of Lords” (February 2010) p. 6.
152. Ofcom, “Digital Economy Act Online Copyright Infringement Appeals Process – Options for Reducing Costs.” Accessed 15 September 2013. http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/Ofcom-appeals_cost_advice_with_redactions.pdf, p. 6.
153. Ibid.
154. Framework Directive 2002/21/EC Directive 2002/ 21/ EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services [2002] OJ L108/33 Article 1(3)a.
155. The National Council for Civil Liberties, “Liberty's Report Stage Briefing on the Digital Economy Bill in the House of Lords” (February 2010) p. 6.
156. BT PLC and Talk Talk PLC v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills and others [2011] EWHC 1021 (Admin) [237].