The summary of the European Court of Justice case: Pez Hejduk v Energy Agentur.NRW GmbH (C441/13)
Ms Hejduk, domiciled in Vienna (Austria), is a professional photographer of architecture and creator of photographic works depicting the buildings of the Austrian architect, George W.Reinberg. Ms Hejduk authorised Mr Reinberg to use her photographs in order to illustrate his buildings, in a conference organised by Energie Agentur, a Germany based company.
Subsequently, Energie Agentur made the photographs used by Mr Reinberg in his illustration available on its website in Germany for viewing and downloading without Ms Hejduk 's consent.
As a result, Ms Hejduk brought up an action before the Handelsgericht in Wien, for damages against Energie Agentur and for authorisation to publish the judgment at the expense of the defendant. That Energie Agentur has infringed her copyright for making her photographs publicly available without her consent and without providing a statement of authorship. Ms Hejduk in justifying the selection of that jurisdiction relies on Article 7(2) Regulation 1215/2012.
Energie Agentur raised an objection to the issue of jurisdiction, that the Handelsgericht Wien lacked international and local jurisdiction, claiming that its website is not directed at Austria and that the mere fact that a website may be accessed from Austria is insufficient to confer jurisdiction on Austria court. The Handelsgericht Wien decided to stay the proceedings and referred the
John Szarkowski is an American photographer and curator, whose opinions on a photograph’s narrative and direction are highly valued. In his time he analyzed many works of art, and produced many different interpretations, one being the ideals of mirrors and windows.
International Festival of Literature Berlin: “Artist Portrait: Liliana Heker”. Culturebase.net. 28 April. 2005. Web. 4 Sept. 2014
be described. Jurisdictional requirements for this case as well as the reasons why it was heard at
This essay will detail the impact of EU liberalisation policy on the UK energy industry and relate this to a previous sample of a group of suppliers. This essay will discuss industry supplier concentration, oligopoly and monopolistic competition, the EU competition commission and potential single markets which are not yet subject to scrutiny by the competition commission.
In the case “United States v. Pearson”, Exide Technology, the largest maker of automotive batteries,
Articles 8 and 10 of the European convention of human rights and section 6 of the human rights act 1998 relate directly to both of the key issues throughout this problem question. These problems regard towards the publication of photographs containing Brad Pitts family and Dylan Davies attendance to a gamblers anonymous meeting.
The instance court was in disagreement with the plaintiff the main reason being that it did not have ratione locigeographic over the issue which was also ratified by the first instance courts. However, the Oberste Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) of Austria thought otherwise. The main argument here was that the issue must have been fore seen by the nuclear plant and was not just inadvertent. This court argued that the baseline establishment rule in the "Gasoline rule" demand "unjustifiable discrimination" as well as "disguised restriction on international trade" therefore it the statute governing venue of claims touching on real estate gives the Austrian courts authority ratione loci over the claims where these business people's investments are affected or will be affected by the emissions.
This paper is prepared in order to understand the IRAC format (Issues, Rule, Analysis, and Conclusion). The IRAC format is considered as the standard format for soling the case studies of the law. In this paper, the case of “ROADS AND TRAFFIC AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES V DEDERER (2007)” is selected to demonstrate the learning about the comprehension and understanding of terminology of law, particularly the terms used in the Law of Tort. Moreover, critical things and case law searching to solve the case study is also practiced and properly referenced in the solution of the case study. Here is the case study solution:
This reading is about a case happened in 1988 and arguments of the case based on different points of view.
Energy Inc. has a present obligation (IAS 37-17) and probable liability (ASC 450-20-25-2) on December 31, 2011 as a result of a past event, the contamination of the land, because it is virtually certain that a draft law requiring cleaning up will be enacted. It is probable (more likely than not) that Energy Inc. will be required to transfer economic benefits in settlement which is an outflow of resources embodying economic benefits in settlement (IAS 37-23). The amount of the obligation or loss can also be estimated reliably since Energy Inc. has made similar payments for cleanup in other countries, which is the best estimate of the costs of the clean (IAS 37-36/ASC 450-20-25-2). As a result, according to IAS 37-14, Energy
Does Richard Lehmann carry the rights as a bystander in which he can claim for damages to an incident where he did not initially perceive the accident but took part in saving his son as well as being in close relation to him as a father.
publication may be reproduced in any form for any purpose without the written permission of the
The text of the chapter goes about provisions on patents, copyright, industrial design and trademark identifies who will produce medicines, goods, convey information. Section Enforcement provides for establishment of a commission, which legal regulators of individual countries at the hearing of cases of intellectual property infringement will have to listen. Human rights activists had no place in the committee. Copyright violators will face tough penalties. Criminal procedures and penalties will be applied even in the absence of willful
Enforcing the European Union legal system is diverse and done on multiple platforms; through not only actions taken against member states for breach of their obligations, but also, for example, through the use of direct effect1. Article 267 TFEU; an organism devised to practice private enforcement of EU law before national courts, has been critical to ensure uniform interpretation and application of EU law in member states. References for preliminary rulings occur when the national courts are presented with a question of EU law due to uncertainty of the provision. The national court will therefore ‘make a reference to the Court of Justice (COJ) to obtain a preliminary ruling on any point of EU law relevant to the proceedings’2. In
rights are granted without permission in writing from the publisher or under licence from the