1

How to enforce civil and commercial judgments after Brexit?

As explained in our two previous articles relating to Brexit, ‟How to protect your creative business after Brexit?” and ‟Brexit legal implications: the road less travelled”, the European Union (‟EU”) regulations and conventions on the jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, ceased to apply in the United Kingdom (‟UK”) once it no longer was a EU member-state. Therefore, since 1 January 2021 (the ‟Transition date”), no clear legal system is in place, to enforce civil and commercial judgments after Brexit, in a EU member-state, or in the UK. Creative businesses now have to rely on domestic recognition regimes in the UK and each EU member-state, if in existence. This introduces additional procedural steps before a foreign judgment is recognised, which makes the enforcement of EU civil and commercial judgments in the UK, and of UK civil and commercial judgments in the EU, more time-consuming, complex and expensive.

How to enforce civil and commercial judgments after Brexit1. How things worked before Brexit, with respect to the enforcement of civil and commercial judgments between the EU and the UK

a. The EU legal framework

Before the Transition date on which the UK ceased to be a EU member-state, there were, and there still are between the 27 remaining EU member-states, four main regimes that are applicable to civil and commercial judgments obtained from EU member-states, depending on when, and where, the relevant proceedings were started.

Each regime applies to civil and commercial matters, and therefore excludes matters relating to revenue, customs and administrative law. There are also separate EU regimes applicable to matrimonial relationships, wills, successions, bankruptcy and social security.

The most recent enforcement regime applicable to civil and commercial judgments is EU regulation n. 1215/2012 of the European parliament and of the council dated 12 December 2012 on the jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the ‟Recast Brussels regulation). It applies to EU member-states’ judgments handed down in proceedings started on or after 10 January 2015.

The original Council regulation n. 44/2001 dated 22 December 2000 on the jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the ‟Original Brussels regulation”), although no longer in force upon the implementation of the Recast Brussels regulation on 9 January 2015, still applies to EU member-states’ judgments handed down in proceedings started before 10 January 2015.

Moreover, the Brussels convention dated 27 September 1968 on the jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the ‟Brussels convention”), also continues to apply in relation to civil and commercial judgments between the 15 pre-2004 EU member-states and certain territories of EU member-states which are located outside the EU, such as Aruba, Caribbean Netherlands, Curacao, the French overseas territories and Mayotte. Before the Transition date, the Brussels convention also applied to judgments handed down in Gibraltar, a British overseas territory.

Finally, the Lugano convention dated 16 September 1988 on the jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the ‟Lugano convention”), which was replaced on 21 December 2007 by the Lugano convention dated 30 October 2007 on the jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the ‟2007 Lugano convention”), govern the recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial judgments between the EU and certain member-states of the European Free Trade Association (‟EFTA”), namely Iceland, Switzerland, Norway and Denmark but not Liechtenstein, which never signed the Lugano convention.

The 2007 Lugano convention was intended to replace both the Lugano convention and the Brussels convention. As such it was open to signature to both EFTA members-states and to EU member-states on behalf of their extra-EU territories. While the former purpose was achieved in 2010 with the ratification of the 2007 Lugano convention by all EFTA member-states (except Liechtenstein, as explained above), no EU member-state has yet acceded to the 2007 Lugano convention on behalf of its extra-EU territories.

The UK has applied to join the 2007 Lugano convention after the Transition date, as we will explain in more details in section 2 below.

b. Enforceability of remedies ordered by a EU court

Before Brexit, the Recast Brussels regulation, the Original Brussels regulation, the Brussels convention, the Lugano convention and the 2007 Lugano convention (together, the ‟EU instruments”) provided, and still provide with respect to the 27 remaining EU member-states, for the enforcement of any judgment in a civil or commercial matter given by a court of tribunal of a EU member-state, whatever it is called by the original court. For example, article 2(a) of the Recast Brussels regulation provides for the enforcement of any ‟decree, order, decision or writ of execution, as well as a decision on the determination of costs or expenses by an officer of the court”.

The Original Brussels regulation also extends to interim, provisional or protective relief (including injunctions), when ordered by a court which has jurisdiction by virtue of this regulation.

c. Competent courts

Before the Transition date, proceedings seeking recognition and enforcement of EU foreign judgments in the UK should be brought before the high court in England and Wales, the court of session in Scotland and the high court of Northern Ireland.

Article 32 of the Brussels convention provides that the proceedings seeking recognition and enforcement of EU foreign judgments in France should be brought before the president of the ‟tribunal judiciaire”. Therefore, before the Transition date, a UK judgment had to be brought before such president, in order to be recognised and enforced in France.

d. Separation of recognition and enforcement

Before the Transition date, and for judgments that fell within the EU instruments other than the Recast Brussels regulation, the process for obtaining recognition of a EU judgment was set out in detail in Part 74 of the UK civil procedure rules (‟CPR”). The process involved applying to a high court master with the support of written evidence. The application should include, among other things, a verified or certified copy of the EU judgment and a certified translation (if necessary). The judgment debtor then had an opportunity to oppose appeal registration on certain limited grounds. Assuming the judgment debtor did not successfully oppose appeal registration, the judgment creditor could then take steps to enforce the judgment.

Before the Transition date, and for judgments that fell within the Recast Brussels regulation, the position was different. Under article 36 of the Recast Brussels regulation, judgments from EU member-states are automatically recognised as if they were a judgment of a court in the state in which the judgment is being enforced; no special procedure is required for the judgment to be recognised. Therefore, prior to Brexit, all EU judgments that fell within the Recast Brussels regulation were automatically recognised as if they were UK judgments, by the high court in England and Wales, the court of session in Scotland and the high court of Northern Ireland. Similarly, all UK judgments that fell within the Recast Brussels regulation were automatically recognised as if they were French judgments, by the presidents of the French ‟tribunal judiciaires”.

Under the EU instruments, any judgment handed down by a court or tribunal from a EU member-state can be recognised. There is no requirement that the judgment must be final and conclusive, and both monetary and non-monetary judgments are eligible to be recognised. Therefore, neither the UK courts, nor the French courts, are entitled to investigate the jurisdiction of the originating EU court. Such foreign judgments shall be recognised without any special procedures, subject to the grounds for non-recognition set out in article 45 of the Recast Brussels regulation, article 34 of the Original Brussels regulation and article 34 of the Lugano convention, as discussed in paragraph e. (Defences) below.

For the EU judgment to be enforced in the UK, prior to the Transition date, and pursuant to article 42 of the Recast Brussels regulation and Part 74.4A of the CPR, the applicant had to provide the documents set out in above-mentioned article 42 to the UK court, i.e.

  • a copy of the judgment which satisfies the conditions necessary to establish its authenticity;
  • the certificate issued pursuant to article 53 of the Recast Brussels regulation, certifying that the above-mentioned judgment is enforceable and containing an extract of the judgment as well as, where appropriate, relevant information on the recoverable costs of the proceedings and the calculation of interest, and
  • if required by the court, a translation of the certificate and judgment.

It was incumbent on the party resisting enforcement to apply for refusal of recognition of the EU judgment, pursuant to article 45 of the Recast Brussels regulation.

Similarly, for UK judgments to be enforced in France, prior to the Transition date, the applicant had to provide the documents set out in above-mentioned article 42 to the French court, which would trigger the automatic enforcement of the UK judgment, in compliance with the principle of direct enforcement.

e. Defences

While a UK defendant may have raised merits-based defences to liability or to the scope of the award entered in the EU jurisdiction, the EU instruments contain express prohibitions on the review of the merits of a judgment from another EU member-state. Consequently, while a judgment debtor may have objected to the registration of a judgment under the EU instruments (or, in the case of the Recast Brussels regulation, which does not require such registration, appeal the recognition or enforcement of the foreign judgment), he or she could have done so only on strictly limited grounds.

In the case of the Recast Brussels regulation, there are set out in above-mentioned article 45 and include:

  • if recognition of the judgment would be manifestly contrary to public policy;
  • if the judgment debtor was not served with proceedings in time to enable the preparation of a proper defence, or
  • if conflicting judgments exist in the UK or other EU member-states.

Equivalent defences are set out in articles 34 to 35 of the Original Brussels regulation and the 2007 Lugano convention, respectively. The court may not have refused a declaration of enforceability on any other grounds.

Another ground for challenging the recognition and enforcement of EU judgments is the breach of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‟ECHR”), which is the right to a fair trial. However, since a fundamental objective underlying the EU regime is to facilitate the free movement of judgments by providing a simple and rapid procedure, and since it was established in Maronier v Larmer [2003] QB 620 that this objective would be frustrated if EU courts of an enforcing EU state could be required to carry out a detailed review of whether the procedures that resulted in the judgment had complied with article 6 of the ECHR, there is a strong presumption that the EU court procedures of other signatories of the ECHR are compliant with article 6. Nonetheless, the presumption can be rebutted, in which case it would be contrary to public policy to enforce the judgment.

To conclude, pre-Brexit, the EU regime (and, predominantly, the Recast Brussels regulation) was an integral part of the system of recognition and enforcement of judgments in the UK. However, after the Transition date, the UK left the EU regime as found in the Recast Brussels regulation, the Original Brussels regulation and the Brussels convention, since these instruments are only available to EU member-states.

So what happens now?

2. How things work after Brexit, with respect to the enforcement of civil and commercial judgments between the EU and the UK

In an attempt to prepare the inevitable, the EU commission published on 27 August 2020 a revised notice setting out its views on how various conflicts of laws issues will be determined post-Brexit, including jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments (the ‟EU notice”), while the UK ministry of justice published on 30 September 2020 Cross-border civil and commercial legal cases: guidance for legal professionals from 1 January 2021” (the ‟MoJ guidance”).

a. The UK accessing the 2007 Lugano convention

As mentioned above, the UK applied to join the 2007 Lugano convention on 8 April 2020, as this is the UK’s preferred regime for governing questions of jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments with the 27 remaining EU member-states, after the Transition date.

However, accessing the 2007 Lugano convention is a four-step process and the UK has not executed those four stages in full yet.

While step one was accomplished on 8 April 2020 when the UK applied to join, step two requires the EU (along with the other contracting parties, ie the EFTA member-states Iceland, Switzerland, Norway and Denmark) to approve the UK’s application to join, followed in step three by the UK depositing the instrument of accession. Step four is a three-month period, during which the EU (or any other contracting state) may object, in which case the 2007 Lugano convention will not enter into force between the UK and that party. Only after that three-month period has expired, does the 2007 Lugano convention enter into force in the UK.

Therefore, in order for the 2007 Lugano convention to have entered into force by the Transition date, the UK had to have received the EU’s approval and deposited its instrument of accession by 1 October 2020. Neither have occured.

Since the EU’s negotiating position, throughout Brexit, has always been ‟nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”, and in light of the recent collision course between the EU and the UK relating to trade in Northern Ireland, it is unlikely that the UK’s request to join the 2007 Lugano convention will be approved by the EU any time soon.

b. The UK accessing the Hague convention

Without the 2007 Lugano convention, the default position after the Transition date is that jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments for new cases issued in the UK will be determined by the domestic law of each UK jurisdiction (i.e. the common law of England and Wales, the common law of Scotland and the common law of Northern Ireland), supplemented by the Hague convention dated 30 June 2005 on choice of court agreements (‟The Hague convention”).

I. At common law rules

The common law relating to recognition and enforcement of judgments applies where the jurisdiction from which the judgment relates does not have an applicable treaty in place with the UK, or in the absence of any applicable UK statute. Prominent examples include judgments of the courts of the United States, China, Russia and Brazil. And now of the EU and its 27 remaining EU member-states.

At common law, a foreign judgment is not directly enforceable in the UK, but instead will be treated as if it creates a contract debt between the parties. The foreign judgment must be final and conclusive, as well as for a specific monetary sum, and on the merits of the action. The creditor will then need to bring an action in the relevant UK jurisdiction for a simple debt, to obtain judicial recognition in accordance with Part 7 CPR, and an English judgment.

Once the judgment creditor has obtained an English judgment in respect of the foreign judgment, that English judgment will be enforceable in the same way as any other judgment of a court in England.

However, courts in the UK will not give judgment on such a debt, where the original court lacked jurisdiction according to the relevant UK conflict of law rules, if it was obtained by fraud, or is contrary to public policy or the requirements of natural justice.

With such blurry and vague contours to the UK common law rules, no wonder that many lawyers and legal academics, on both sides of the Channel, decry the ‟mess” and ‟legal void” left by Brexit, as far as the enforcement and recognition of civil and commercial judgments in the UK are concerned.

II. The Hague convention

As mentioned above, from the Transition date onwards, the jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments for new cases issued in England and Wales will be determined by its common law, supplemented by the Hague convention.

The Hague convention gives effect to exclusive choice of court clauses, and provides for judgments given by courts that are designated by such clauses to be recognised and enforced in other contracting states. The contracting states include the EU, Singapore, Mexico and Montenegro. The USA, China and Ukraine have signed the Hague convention but not ratified or acceded to it, and it therefore does not currently apply in those countries.

Prior to the Transition date, the UK was a contracting party to the Hague convention because it continued to benefit from the EU’s status as a contracting party. The EU acceded on 1 October 2015. By re-depositing the instrument of accession on 28 September 2020, the UK acceded in its own right to the Hague convention on 1 January 2021, thereby ensuring that the Hague convention would continue to apply seamlessly from 1 January 2021.

As far as types of enforceable orders are concerned, under the Hague convention, the convention applies to final decisions on the merits, but not interim, provisional or protective relief (article 7). Under article 8(3) of the Hague convention, if a foreign judgment is enforceable in the country of origin, it may be enforced in England. However, article 8(3) of the Hague convention allows an English court to postpone or refuse recognition if the foreign judgment is subject to appeal in the country of origin.

However, there are two major contentious issues with regards to the material and temporal scope of the Hague convention, and the EU’s and UK’s positions differ on those issues. They are likely to provoke litigation in the new future.

The first area of contention relates to the material scope of the Hague convention: more specifically, what is an ‟exclusive choice of court agreement”?

Article 1 of the Hague convention provides that the convention only applies to exclusive choice of courts agreements, so the issue of whether a choice of court agreement is ‟exclusive” or not is critical as to whether such convention applies.

Exclusive choice of court agreements are defined in article 3(a) of the Hague convention as those that designate ‟for the purpose of deciding disputes which have arisen or may arise in connection with a particular legal relationship, the courts of one Contracting state or one or more specific courts of one Contracting state, to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of any other courts”.

Non-exclusive choice of court agreements are defined in article 22(1) of the The Hague convention as choice of court agreements which designate ‟a court or courts of one or more Contracting states”.

Although this is a fairly clear distinction for ‟simple” choice of court agreements, ‟asymmetric” or ‟unilateral” agreements are not so easily categorised. These types of jurisdiction agreements are a common feature of English law-governed finance documents, such as the Loan Market Association standard forms. They generally give one contracting party (the lender) the choice of a range of courts in which to sue, while limiting the other party (the borrower) to the courts of a single state (usually, the lender’s home state).

There are divergent views as to whether asymmetric choice of court agreements are exclusive or non-exclusive for the purposes of the Hague convention. While two English high court judges have expressed the view that choice of court agreements should be regarded as exclusive, within the scope of the Hague convention, the explanatory report accompanying the Hague convention, case law in EU member-states and academic commentary all suggest the opposite.

This issue will probably be resolved in court, if and when the time comes to decide whether asymmetric or unilateral agreements are deemed to be exclusive choice of court agreements, susceptible to fall within the remit of the Hague convention.

The second area of contention relates to the temporal scope of the Hague convention: more specifically, when did the Hague convention ‟enter into force” in the UK?

Pursuant to article 16 of the Hague convention, such convention only applies to exclusive choice of court agreements concluded ‟after its entry into force, for the State of the chosen court”.

There is a difference of opinion as to the application of the Hague convention to exclusive jurisdiction clauses in favour of UK courts entered into between 1 October 2015 and 1 January 2021, when the UK was a party to the Hague convention by virtue of its EU membership.

Indeed, while the EU notice states that the Hague convention will only apply between the EU and UK to exclusive choice of court agreements ‟concluded after the convention enters into force in the UK as a party in its own right to the convention” – i.e. from the Transition date; the MoJ guidance sets out that the Hague convention ‟will continue to apply to the UK (without interruption) from its original entry into force date of 1 October 2015”, which is when the EU became a signatory to the convention, at which time the convention also entered into force in the UK by virtue of the UK being a EU member-state.

 

To conclude, the new regime of enforcement and recognition of EU judgments in the UK, and vice versa, is uncertain and fraught with possible litigation with respect to the scope of application of the Hague convention, at best.

Therefore, and since these legal issues relating to how to enforce civil and commercial judgments after Brexit are here to stay for the medium term, it is high time for the creative industries to ensure that any dispute arising out of their new contractual agreements are resolved through arbitration.

Indeed, as explained in our article ‟Alternative dispute resolution in the creative industries, arbitral awards are recognised and enforced by the Convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards 1958 (the ‟New York convention”). Such convention is unaffected by Brexit and London, the UK capital, is one of the most popular and trusted arbitral seats in the world.

Until the dust settles, with respect to the recognition and enforcement of EU judgments in the UK, and vice versa, it is wise to resolve any civil or commercial dispute by way of arbitration, to obtain swift, time-effective and cost-effective resolution of matters, while preserving the cross-border relationships, established with your trade partners, between the UK and the European continent.



 

Crefovi regularly updates its social media channels, such as LinkedinTwitterInstagramYouTube and Facebook. Check our latest news there!



 


    Your name (required)

    Your email (required)

    Subject

    Your message

    captcha





    Lawfully Creative | Malik Mezzadri, aka Magic Malik, French jazz flautist extraordinaire

    About the show

    Magic MalikThe podcast ‟Lawfully Creative” is a series of intimate and honest conversations hosted by Annabelle Gauberti, the founding and managing partner of London and Paris-based law firm Crefovi, which focuses on advising the creative industries. Annabelle talks with artists, policy makers and professionals in the creative industries – to hear their stories, what inspires their creations, what decisions changed their careers, and what relationships influenced their work. Produced by Crefovi.

    Subscribe

    Catch-up with our original shows on iTunes, Spotify, DeezerStitcherYouTube, Patreon, Google PodcastsSoundcloud, CastboxTuneIn, Breaker, RadioPublic, Anchor, Pocket Casts, PlayerFM, iHeartRadio and Overcast, every month. 

    Episode n. 17: Malik Mezzadri, aka Magic Malik, French jazz flautist extraordinaire

    Magic MalikMalik Mezzadri, who performs under the stage name Magic Malik, tells us all about his flautist, and jazz, expertise, as one of the most productive and creative composers, and interpreters, of flute-centered musical works. Through his Fanfare XP iterations, the Magic Malik orchestra and, more recently, the Jazz Association, Malik blows everyone’s mind with his crystalline flute sound, as well as his novel approach to jazz, Afrobeat and contemporary music.

    23 April 2021 – Magic Malik is one of the most versatile jazz flautists in the world, spanning a 35 years’ career in jazz, contemporary and pop music, as well as Afrobeat. How did he reach such heights, on the pinnacle of star jazz musicians, in such a time period? What is his secret recipe to make it, as a jazz flautist expert in the music business? Hear Malik’s advice and stories here, in his conversation with Crefovi’s founding and managing partner, Annabelle Gauberti.

    Rate

    Please do leave a review and rating about the podcast ‟Lawfully Creative”, to encourage others to discover our curated content.

    A global network

    Clients praise Crefovi’s lawyers for their responsiveness & ability to understand the technical, business and legal aspects of each commercial transaction and come back, deal after deal, to be advised by them.

    While London and Paris based, we routinely work across borders. The vast majority of our engagements are multi-jurisdictional. We are used to working in multinational teams, and rely on our network of specialist lawyers for support in other jurisdictions.

    The team has therefore established an extensive international network of creative industries’ contacts and a close association with other specialist lawyers worldwide. Our history of successes in high profile, politically sensitive matters reflects an ability to act swiftly and with the utmost discretion.

    Indeed, Crefovi’s lawyers are very well connected in the world of the creative industries, attending, and participating to discussion panels at, on a regular basis, each session of the professional trade shows such as CESWeb SummitDLD & SlushMidem, as well as the Cannes film festival and EFM and the Berlinale.

     

    Crefovi regularly updates its social media channels, such as LinkedinTwitterInstagramYouTube and Facebook. Check our latest news there!

     

      Your name (required)

      Your email (required)

      Subject

      Your message

      captcha




      Why the UK TuneIn judgments are a return to the dark ages

      What happens when you let some old farts from the UK judiciary, fueled by a doomed Brexit, single-handedly decide the technological future, advances and boon to which UK users should have access to? Well, stupid business choices justified by perfectly elegant and intellectually stimulating legal decisions handed down by old timers on a rampage to make ‟Britain great again”. I am sorry that TuneIn had to pay such a hefty price, on the UK market but, oh boy, it did.

      TuneInAs a daily jogger, I am an early adopter, and fervent user, of radio apps, such as Radio Garden and TuneIn, in order to listen to, in particular, Los Angeles’ radio stations such as KCRW Eclectic 24 and KPFK, while I am practising my daily and morning sport exercises. While at home, I listen to French radio stations such as FIP or Nova, or to LA channels, via Tunein which is accessible on my Sonos home sound systems, software (installed on my two iphones) and speakers.

      However, over the last year or so, I could not help but notice that European radio stations, such as FIP or France Inter, were no longer accessible from either TuneIn station or Sonos Radio station, while I am in the United Kingdom (‟UK”).

      Well, now I know why. Indeed, I read today the 3 latest issues from Music Confidential published by Susan Butler on the ‟TuneIn appellate decision” (sic).

      Intrigued, I decided to delve deeper into this case and gulped (there is no other word) the 47 pages of the Warner Music UK Ltd and Sony Music Entertainment UK Ltd versus TuneIn Inc decision handed down by the High court of justice of England & Wales on 1 November 2019, as well as the 56 pages of the TuneIn Inc versus Warner Music UK Limited and Sony Music Entertainment UK Limited judgment handed down by the Court of appeal on 26 March 2021.

      Whilst I admire the intellectual virtuosity of the first degree judge, Justice Birss, displayed in the above-mentioned first degree decision, as well as the ‟strong hand in a velvet glove” approach favoured by the appeal judge, Justice Arnold, in the appellate judgment, I can only conclude that this exercise in intellectual masturbation by the judiciary has led, yet again, to another castration of a technological product full of creativity, advancement, connectivity to the world and fantastic ubiquity.

      Am I therefore pissed off?

      Yes. Here is why.

      Are you actually saying that TuneIn should ditch internet radio stations which are unlicensed in the UK?

      The ‟modus operandi” of TuneIn is to operate an online platform, website and apps, which provide a service enabling users to access radio stations around the world. The service is called TuneIn Radio.

      It is now available on over 200 platform connected devices, including smart phones, tablets, televisions, car audio systems, smart speakers such as Sonos, and wearable technologies.

      TuneIn Radio has links to over 100,000 radio stations, broadcast by third parties from many different geographic locations around the world. It is monetised through advertising and subscriptions, although the subscription is free for many users of hardware products such as Sonos and Bose sound systems.

      TuneIn Radio is awesome because, like Radio Garden, it allows users to save some radio channels as favourites, offers some curation services as well as some search functions, which a new user may use when he or she does not know what radio stations he or she may like. In addition, TuneIn Radio provides perks such as personalisation of content, collation of station information presented on individual station pages, and artist information set out on dedicated artist pages.

      Even better, until a few years ago, TuneIn Radio offered a recording device, through its Pro app, which also included a curated repertoire of a large number of music internet radio stations.

      As a user, you are therefore blissfully entertained, and your every musical needs catered for, when using the full gamut of TuneIn Radio’s perks and services.

      Well, such users’ bliss was short-lived, however, since the High court decision, confirmed by the 2021 appellate judgment, found that by including internet radio stations which are either unlicensed, such as Capital FM Bangladesh and Urban 96.5 Nigeria, or not compliant with the local neighbouring rights regime, such as Kazakhstan station Gakku FM and Montenegro’s City Radio, TuneIn Radio was infringing under section 20 of the 1988 Copyright, designs and patents act (the ‟Act”) which provides:

      20. Infringement by communication to the public
      (1) The communication to the public of the work is an act restricted by the copyright in—
      (a) a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work,
      (b) a sound recording or film, or
      (c) a broadcast.

      (2) References in this Part to communication to the public are to communication to the public by electronic transmission, and in relation to a work include—
      (a) the broadcasting of the work;
      (b) the making available to the public of the work by electronic transmission in such a way that members of the public may access it from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.

      So not only those unlicensed and non-compliant internet radio stations are in breach of the right to communicate to the public, but TuneIn Radio is too, since it provides links to those streams.

      Had TuneIn Radio not obtained a warranty from those internet radio stations that they operated lawfully in their home state? God forbid, TuneIn Radio could not rely on such warranty, of course, and the onus was on TuneIn Radio to double-check that such internet radio stations were either licensed or compliant with their local neighbouring rights regime.

      So what is the direct consequence of such stance, taken by the UK High court and Court of appeal? Well, all those internet radio stations become unavailable to the public, in the UK but also probably in other European countries such as the 27 member-states of the European Union (‟EU”), via the TuneIn Radio platforms, websites and apps.

      Indeed, all the reasoning made by Justice Birss, in the first degree case, as well as Justice Arnold, in the appellate case, revolved around article 3 of the EU Information Society Directive (the ‟Directive”), which was transposed into the above-mentioned section 20 of the Act, and the abondant, eye-wateringly complex and excruciatingly intricate related case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‟CJEU”) on the right of communication to the public.

      So, yeah, you bet, this TuneIn case is valid both for the UK (which has now exited the EU via its unwitty Brexit), and the 27 remaining member-states of the EU.

      Therefore, users and customers lose because they cannot listen to all worldwide internet radio streams via TuneIn anymore, as a direct consequence of the UK decisions.

      And it does not stop there! Perish the thought.

      What about those music radio stations which are licensed for a local territory other than the UK, such as VRT Studio Brussel in Belgium, Mix Megapol in Sweden and MavRadio in the USA?

      For these radio stations outside the USA, the countries operate various kinds of remuneration rights regimes and these stations are paying remuneration under these local schemes. The USA operates a statutory licence scheme conditional on paying royalties and the sample radio MavRadio pays those royalties. However, in all of these cases, the relevant body has not granted geographical rights for the UK.

      Ahhh, the UK first degree judgement, confirmed in appeal says, that’s not my problem, my dear sir: TuneIn’s act of communication in relation to those sample radio streams which pay royalties to a body that does not grant geographical rights for the UK, is unlawful, unless licensed by the UK rights holder. Since it is currently not, TuneIn’s actions amount to infringement under above-mentioned section 20 of the Act.

      Therefore, TuneIn has to now remove all this pool of internet radio stations from its platforms, apps and websites too, until it has figured out how to strike a deal with the UK rights holders.

      Probably, TuneIn’s best call is to reach out to the UK neighbouring rights collecting society, PPL, and start the licensing negotiations from there, immediately. Also, TuneIn better cooperate directly with labels Warner and Sony, to strike those licences, now that the UK first degree decision has been confirmed in appeal and since these two claimants ‟account for more than half the market for digital sales of recorded music in the UK and about 43 percent globally” (sic).

      While I can understand that the UK courts would slam TuneIn for not proactively getting a UK neighbouring rights’ licence for its own premium radio stations, made available exclusively to TuneIn’s subscribers, I found it profoundly castrating to make TuneIn’s liable for primary infringement of the right of communication to the public for merely providing streams to unlicensed and non-compliant third party internet radio stations and to third party internet radio stations which do not pay royalties in the UK.

      What about the right of UK and EU users to have access to as much culture, musical experience and knowhow, as possible, even in a geopolitical context where most countries in the world do not care about, and probably don’t even know what are, neighbouring rights?

      This is directly discriminating UK and, probably, all EU listeners and users, because TuneIn will now have to geoblock all its links to non-compliant and unruly streams, which probably constitute at least 50 percent of the 100,000 internet radio stations available on its apps, platforms and websites.

      So Justice Birss and Justice Arnold can now breathe a sigh of relief, at the thought of having saved European neighbouring rights in the face or barbarian non-British cultural invasion, but I am sure that most UK users of TuneIn only have a ‟fuck you” to respond in return, for their ill-advised, technologically-stiffling and Brexitist stance on the matter.

      Now, by using TuneIn Radio, a UK user will only have access to music radio stations which are licensed in the UK by PPL, such as BBC Radio 2, Heart London, Classic FM and Jazz FM. Thank you very much, but we can already access those radio channels on our terrestrial radio sets or on their respective online platforms, from the UK, so what is the added value of TuneIn Radio in the UK now, pray tell?

      So I can’t use the recording service on TuneIn anymore?

      Of course, Justice Birss, and then Justice Arnold, went for the jugular with respect to the recording option by users of TuneIn’s Pro app.

      Indeed, in terms of a user’s use of the recording function, the claimants contended that the Pro app was not just a recording device. It also included a curated repertoire of a large number of music internet radio stations. The purchaser of the Pro app would, reasonably, understand that TuneIne had sold them the Pro app (with its built in recording function) in order to allow them to record audio content offered by the TuneIn Radio service. There was also a point on the degree of control exercised by TuneIn. Only internet radio stations provided by TuneIn could be recorded and TuneIn could disable the record function at a station-by-station level.

      While this TuneIn recording function was a very original, and unique, offered feature, in the competitive world of radio aggregators, the High court decision, confirmed in appeal, swiftly killed it, by finding that ‟TuneIn had authorised the infringements carried out by its users by recording using the Pro app” and therefore ‟TuneIn’s service via the Pro app when the recording function was enabled infringed the claimants’ copyrights under Section 20 of the Act”.

      Even if Justice Arnold allowed the appeal, in his appellant judgment, against the conclusion drawn by the first degree judge, that TuneIn was liable for infringement by communication to the public in relation to the ‟category 1” stations (i.e. the internet radio stations which already are licensed in the UK via PPL) by virtue of providing the Pro app to UK users with the record function enabled, the outcome is the same: off with its head, with respect to the great recording function offered by TuneIn’s Pro app.

      As Susan Butler wisely wrote, in her Music Confidential’s last three issues, ‟in my view, however, that does not mean that (intellectual property) must be disruptive to digital innovation across national borders”. ‟(…) the bad kind of disruption – the costly and destructive kind – seems to occur most often when anyone tries to drag old business models or entities built around old business models into new multi-national digital marketplace. (…) Everyone must become more pliable to truly reshape the market to support true innovation”.

      Well, Susan, with the old farts who handed down the 2019 and then 2021 decisions (check them out on the audio-video recorded hearings here!), count on it.

      Another example of UK splendid and backward looking isolation, my friends: where is my visa to move to Los Angeles asap, please?



      Crefovi regularly updates its social media channels, such as LinkedinTwitterInstagramYouTube and Facebook. Check our latest news there!




        Your name (required)

        Your email (required)

        Subject

        Your message

        captcha


         




        Crefovi’s take on EFM online 2021: finally, the digital revolution has come to the film industry!

        Crefovi’s founding and managing partner, Annabelle Gauberti, attended, by way of her MacBookPro, the EFM online 2021 session from 1 to 5 March 2021. What are Crefovi’s key takeaways from the first European film festival and market of the year? Was this online session a success, managing to link buyers and sellers, as well as their respective service providers, together?

        EFM online 2021Distributors’ need for European content to meet the statutory ratios set out in the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (‟AVMSD”)

        As part of its push towards shaping Europe’s digital future, in the digital single market, the European Union (‟EU”) adopted the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (‟AVMSD”) in November 2018.

        This directive had to be transposed by September 2020 into national legislation in the 27 EU member-states. Yet, since only Denmark, Hungary, the Netherlands and Sweden notified transposition measures to the EU, the EU Commission sent formal notices to all the other 23 EU member-states, requesting them to provide further information, in November 2020.

        Be that as it may, the AVMSD is already impacting the buying strategy of distributors and other streaming companies (called ‟streamers” during the EFM online 2021 session).

        Indeed, the AVMSD governs EU-wide coordination of national legislation on all audiovisual media, both traditional TV broadcasts and on-demand services.

        Since one of the goals of this EU coordination, via the AVMSD, is to preserve cultural diversity, each EU member-state is currently figuring out how best to transpose into national law the new obligation, for video on-demand services (which include streamers), to ensure at least a 30 percent share of European content in their catalogues, and to give prominence to such European content. The provisions of the AVMSD also allow, under certain conditions, EU member-states to impose on media service providers that are established in other member-states, obligations to contribute financially to the production of European works. The new obligations do not apply to media service providers with a low turnover or a low audience, in order not to undermine market development and inhibit the entry of new market players.

        So, of course, the likes of Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney+ are opening their large purses freely, in order to catch the best European titles, and therefore meet the 30 percent share of European works, which is a ‟sine qua non” condition for them to keep on, or start (in the case of Disney+, Hulu, HBO Max), offering their video on-demand services to EU consumers.

        This was a blessing for European film producers, directors and sales agents present at the EFM online 2021 session. Indeed, a lot of key deals were signed at the European Film Market, this year, for European titles such as French work ‟Petite Maman” from Céline Sciamma, Radu Jude’s Golden Bear winner ‟Bad Luck Banging Or Loony Porn” (from Romania), and many more.

        COVID 19’s negative impact on the production stage of film projects and how the UK and French film industry stakeholders rebounded

        There is another reason why current new film content has not met the high demand (for European titles and other international works) in the supply chain. Well, you guessed it, the COVID 19 pandemic is the cause, of course.

        Due to health and safety issues, the logistics of going into the film production stage have, for a while, seemed unsurmountable. Almost all film productions shut down, during the first European lockdown in February to June 2020. Then, everybody took a hold of themselves and went back to work, putting in place extremely stringent health and safety precautionary measures, pre, during and post production, such as:

        • administering PCR COVID test to all above-the-line and below-the-line production staff upon entry in the UK and France, and then on each day of production;
        • mandatory wear of personal protective equipment for all staff other than actors currently filming;
        • keeping the mandatory 2 meters’ apart distanciation rule, between all team members.

        Major talents and film producers would have none of the nonsense that COVID deniers would throw their way, with Tom Cruise going on record for his outburst towards UK film crew members who were flouting social distancing guidelines, on the Leavesden set of the 7th instalment of his ‟Mission: impossible” franchise, in December 2020.

        The panel for EFM online 2021 session, from the British film commission, provides vivid description of how UK film producers and their staff had to adapt, at very short notice, when the pandemic hit in 2020, and how they are regularly reviewing and improving their health and logistics protocols, in order to ensure that they are compliant with the latest health news and information about the virus.

        Also, the cost of insurance went through the roof, for most film productions around the world, making it impossible for many a project to move onto production stage. This disproportionately impacted independent filmmakers, to the point that governments stepped in, such as the UK government issuing a ‟Film & TV production restart scheme” for UK film and TV productions struggling to get insurance for Covid-related costs.

        Of course, at the end of the film supply chain, a major change occurred, thanks to the pandemic: the tyranny, imposed by major film studios and European governments, consisting in forbidding ‟day-and-date” release (i.e. a simultaneous release of a film on multiple platforms – most commonly theatrical and on-demand videos services), dissolved. Cinemas have been closed for a while, now, since March 2020, on-and-off, due to the pandemic-induced lockdown. Therefore, there is a change of paradigm, for film producers and directors, from asking themselves ‟Should we go for a day-and-date release?”, to ‟On which video on-demand service and/or streamer, my film will shine most?”.

        Indeed, die-hard fans of the theatrical window have started to yield, such as film major Universal pictures which released big films on streamers from March 2020 onwards.

        Other major studios have preferred to hold back releasing many big titles indefinitely, such as Wes Anderson’s ‟The French dispatch”, much to the chagrin of end-consumers and fans.

        EFM online 2021: filling the gap for more top-quality content with VFX hacks such as virtual production

        One of the major takeaways from the EFM online 2021 is that, due to this huge demand for content, film professionals need to produce more, faster, at an affordable cost, and in very high production value.

        This is where virtual production is coming, to deliver this faster, smoother and enhanced quality.

        From the moment where the initial upfront cost and investment of acquiring top virtual production tools and material have been incurred, it is a no-brainer: virtual production specialists laude the cost and time savings, as well as agility, induced by this new technology, predicting that every filmmaker will irresistibly move to virtual production in the near future.

        So what is virtual production? Virtual production is the use and incorporation of visual effects (‟VFX”) and technology throughout the production life cycle. While this process is not entirely new, the film industry is now paying much attention to virtual production, because it enhances production planning, increases shooting efficiency and reduces the number of expensive reshoots. Through visualisation, motion capture, hybrid camera, and LED live-action, the virtual production techniques that belong to the toolset of modern content creation are perfectly adapted to a COVID 19-era of film production.

        Potentially, virtual production would allow actors, and crew members, to shoot and work from multiple locations, in a safe environment where they have set up their respective COVID-19 health and safety protocols and bubble.

        The challenge now is for film professionals to jump on the bandwagon and swiftly obtain appropriate training on virtual production and other VFX tools and technologies, so that they can hit the ground running and offer their new much-needed skills to French and UK film productions.

         

        To conclude, while I would have liked all presentations and virtual events to be accessible to all participants, during the EFM online 2021 (festival organisers cannot pretend that the room has a limited number of seats, anymore, right?), I deeply enjoyed the virtual attendance of this film market and festival, getting a lot out of it, from catching up on the latest trends to catching up with our film clients and prospects via Cinando and the online EFM platform. We will be back!



        Crefovi regularly updates its social media channels, such as LinkedinTwitterInstagramYouTube and Facebook. Check our latest news there!




          Your name (required)

          Your email (required)

          Subject

          Your message

          captcha





          Lawfully Creative | Lucie Touboul, head of legal & business affairs at sales agent Dogwoof

          About the show

          Lucie TouboulThe podcast ‟Lawfully Creative” is a series of intimate and honest conversations hosted by Annabelle Gauberti, the founding and managing partner of London and Paris-based law firm Crefovi, which focuses on advising the creative industries. Annabelle talks with artists, policy makers and professionals in the creative industries – to hear their stories, what inspires their creations, what decisions changed their careers, and what relationships influenced their work. Produced by Crefovi.

          Subscribe

          Catch-up with our original shows on iTunes, Spotify, DeezerStitcherYouTube, Patreon, Google PodcastsSoundcloud, CastboxTuneIn, Breaker, RadioPublic, Anchor, Pocket Casts, PlayerFM, iHeartRadio and Overcast, every month. 

          Episode n. 16: Lucie Touboul, head of legal & business affairs at sales agent Dogwoof

          Lucie TouboulLucie Touboul is a legal woman, through and through. At Dogwoof, she is a fervent ambassador for documentary and film creators, ensuring that they get the best deal possible with streamers and other platforms, by way of sales and distribution agreements.

          5 March 2021 – Lucie Touboul cut herself a path in the film industry, as head of legal & business affairs at leading documentary sales agent and UK theatrical distributor Dogwoof. How did she do so well, in such a small time period? What is her secret recipe to make it, as a legal expert in the film business? Hear Lucie’s war stories and snippets of her experience as a film in-house lawyer, here, in her conversation with Crefovi’s founding and managing partner, Annabelle Gauberti.

          Rate

          Please do leave a review and rating about the podcast ‟Lawfully Creative”, to encourage others to discover our curated content.

          A global network

          Clients praise Crefovi’s lawyers for their responsiveness & ability to understand the technical, business and legal aspects of each commercial transaction and come back, deal after deal, to be advised by them.

          While London and Paris based, we routinely work across borders. The vast majority of our engagements are multi-jurisdictional. We are used to working in multinational teams, and rely on our network of specialist lawyers for support in other jurisdictions.

          The team has therefore established an extensive international network of creative industries’ contacts and a close association with other specialist lawyers worldwide. Our history of successes in high profile, politically sensitive matters reflects an ability to act swiftly and with the utmost discretion.

          Indeed, Crefovi’s lawyers are very well connected in the world of the creative industries, attending, and participating to discussion panels at, on a regular basis, each session of the professional trade shows such as CESWeb SummitDLD & SlushMidem, as well as the Cannes film festival and EFM and the Berlinale.

           

          Crefovi regularly updates its social media channels, such as LinkedinTwitterInstagramYouTube and Facebook. Check our latest news there!

           

            Your name (required)

            Your email (required)

            Subject

            Your message

            captcha