Source: http://docplayer.net/605993-6-government-works-1-introduction-mireille-van-eechoud.html
Timestamp: 2018-07-17 23:13:37
Document Index: 285628005

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'art. 4', 'Art. 11', 'Art. 12', 'Art. 11', 'Art. 11', 'Art. 99', 'Art. 11', 'art. 11', 'Art. 11', 'Art. 11', 'Art. 15', 'Art. 15', 'Art. 15', 'Art. 15', 'Art. 15', 'Art. 15', 'Art. 15', 'Art. 15', 'Art 1', 'Art. 15', 'Art. 15', 'Art. 23', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 15', 'Art. 33', 'Art. 7', 'art.11']

6 Government Works. 1. Introduction. Mireille van Eechoud* - PDF
6 Government Works. 1. Introduction. Mireille van Eechoud*
Download "6 Government Works. 1. Introduction. Mireille van Eechoud*"
Annabella Pope
1 6 Government Works Mireille van Eechoud* 1. Introduction That works produced by or for public sector bodies are in principle subject to copyright seems to have been assumed as early as the 1817 Copyright Act, 1 and as a matter of positive law is still true today. This is not to say government copyright is uncontroversial, or ever has been. The regulation of what we would today maybe more accurately term public sector copyright is historically linked to ideas about representative democracy, the legitimacy and binding effect of laws, and transparency in judicial proceedings. These notions can produce a variety of regulatory outcomes, as the diversity in national laws shows. 2 In the Netherlands the Copyright Act follows a two-pronged approach. Some categories of texts are excluded from copyright altogether on the grounds that they are core texts of the democratic state (laws, judicial decisions and the like). For other works produced by the public sector, or in which it has acquired copyright, the default position is that they may be freely reproduced, adapted, distributed or otherwise communicated once they have been first published by or on behalf of the public authorities. The public sector may however reserve its rights. As regards the requirements for protection, the duration and the scope of rights including limitations and exemptions, the investment of ownership and modalities of transfer, public sector information is in principle not treated differently from other works. The historical development and key characteristics of the relevant provisions are discussed in section 2 below. As far as statute law is concerned, three things * M.M.M. van Eechoud is associate professor at the Institute for Information Law (IViR), University of Amsterdam. 1 For a detailed analysis, see Chris Schriks, Staatsauteursrecht, Walburg Pers Mireille van Eechoud, Bernt Hugenholtz et al, Harmonizing European Copyright Law. The Challenges of Better Lawmaking, Kluwer 2009, p
2 Mireille van Eechoud will become apparent. First, the provisions have gone largely unchanged for more than a century. Second, few conflicts seem to have arisen, assuming at least that the fact that only a handful of (published) cases exist is indicative of the incidence of disputes over copyright in government works. This suggests that the provisions are thus among the most stable and least controversial in Dutch copyright law. Or possibly, that they lack significance in practice. A third thing worth noticing is that the existence and exercise of copyright in government works so far seems to have gone largely untouched by European law, an issue explored in section 3. This apparent stability may however not last much longer. Not only because harmonization at the EU level still progresses. A host of other developments have implications for copyright policy. These include the progression towards E-government, the rise of data-savvy civil society groups with an interest in transparent and accountable governments, the drive of authorities to manage information more efficiently, and the potential for commercial exploitation of public sector information by the private sector. Section 4 highlights how such trends affect the regulation of copyright in public sector information. 2. Government works in the Act of Legislative history and relationship to Berne Convention In his detailed analysis of early state copyright in the Netherlands, Schriks traces its origins to 17th-century printing privileges and the increasing grip city and provincial authorities secured over their preferred printers. At the state level, the adoption of legal norms on the copying of official texts is linked to the introduction of government periodicals for official publication ( Staatsblad, Staatscourant ) and the institution of the stationer s office ( Staatsdrukkerij ) in Following the establishment of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands ( ), there was a boom in the enactment of new statutes, notably codes such as the Civil Code and Penal Code. These laws were published by the Staatsdrukkerij. The 1817 Copyright Act contained no explicit reference to copyright in government texts. 4 Two Royal Decrees, of 1822 and 1827, sought to establish (or confirm) copyright in all state documents. Once officially published, reproduction and further distribution was allowed unless the copyright was reserved. Many such reservations were made to protect the Staatsdrukkerij from competition. Some took the form of temporary monopolies, for example giving a six-month 3 Schriks, Staatsauteursrecht, p , p Wet 25 January 1817, Stb. 1817,
3 Government Works window for the printing of new codes. In Staat v. Norman however, the Supreme Court ruled that the state could not claim copyright in laws on the basis of the 1817 Copyright Act, since that act only vested rights in natural persons. 5 Subsequently the Decrees were repealed (1841). 6 The period in which the copyright status of government texts was uncertain lasted until the 1881 Copyright Act. The 1860 proposals for a copyright act by the booksellers association excluded laws and other officially published texts from copyright. 7 This idea was taken up in the 1877 legislative proposal for a Regeling van het auteursregt that would become the 1881 Copyright Act. 8 The Explanatory Memorandum to the proposal refers to the battle over state copyright in the previous decades. The new act explicitly recognized the possibility that legal entities under private law own (initial) copyright. In the Memorandum it is argued that there is no reason to treat the state differently from other corporations by excluding it from owning copyright per se. However, the public interest will as a rule dictate that the state does not exercise its copyright but leaves everyone free to disseminate texts which the state assumes are (or should be) known to citizens. Article 4 therefore provided that except in cases provided by law, no copyright exists in laws, decrees, ordinances and all that is otherwise, in speech or writing, publicly communicated by or on behalf of any public authority. A majority of the reporters to parliament agreed that in principle there should be no copyright in government works, but some members argued for an exclusion that was limited to laws and similar texts (as the contemporary draft for the Belgian Copyright Act provided). There was also some debate about the best way to regulate exceptions. 9 The government maintained these could be made by law, that is by royal decree or act of parliament. 10 In plenary session Article 4 was no longer a contentious issue and was adopted without further debate. 11 In the 1912 Copyright Act, it resurfaced in a slightly different version (see section 2.2 below). 5 Supreme Court (Staat v. Norman), cited in Jacqueline Seignette, Challenges to the Creator Doctrine, Deventer: Kluwer 1994, p. 46; see extensively on the case and the debate it caused among legal professionals, politicians and in the publishing industry, Schriks, Staatsauteursrecht, p Koninklijk Besluit van 24 April 1841 (Stb. 1841, 11); see extensively on the case and the debate it caused among legal professionals, politicians and in the publishing industry, Schriks, Staatsauteursrecht, p Art. 6 Ontwerp eener wettelijke regeling van het kopijregt, ingediend door het Bestuur der Vereeniging ter Bevordering der Belangen des Boekhandels (1860), Kamerstukken II , 202, nr Art Act = Art. 6 Ontwerp van Wet tot regeling van het Auteursregt, Kamerstukken II 1876/77, 202 nr Kamerstukken II 1876/77, 202, nr. 3 (Explanatory Memorandum), Kamerstukken II 1877/78, 25, nr. 1 (Preliminary Report). 10 Nadere MvA Regeling auteursrecht 1881 inz. art. 4, Kamerstukken II , nr. 15 (1). 11 Handelingen II 1880/81, 1 June 1881, p and 2 June 1881, p
4 Mireille van Eechoud On the topic of government works, the original 1912 Act did not take anything from the Berne Convention, 12 for the simple reason that the 1886 Treaty did not specifically address the copyright status of government works. Later revisions explicitly left Union members the freedom to decide how to treat certain foreign government works. The 1928 Rome Act specified that [t]he right of partially or wholly excluding political speeches and speeches delivered in legal proceedings from the protection provided by the preceding Article is reserved for the domestic legislation of each country of the Union. (Article 2bis(1) Rome Act, Article 2bis Paris Act). Article 2(2) of the 1948 Brussels Act first expressed the right of countries to determine the protection to be granted to translations of [emphasis added] official texts of a legislative, administrative and legal nature. The 1967 Stockholm Act broadened the provision to its current form, which is not limited to translations (Article 2(4) Paris Act 1971). The Berne Convention thus leaves it to states to determine whether official documents are copyrighted and to what extent speeches delivered in political or legal proceedings are public domain. Note that the Berne Convention does not regulate domestic situations but only concerns the protection of works originating from other Union countries (Article 5(1) BC). So even if it were to directly regulate government works, the Dutch lawmaker would still be at liberty to decide on the copyright status of Dutch government works, that is: works originating in the Netherlands either as country of first publication, or for unpublished works as country of the author s residence or nationality. The legislature however generally tends to align the protection for domestic works with the (substantive) norms of the Berne Convention and other copyright treaties. This is why Article 2(4) BC has informed the restructuring of the corresponding provision in the 1912 Dutch Copyright Act, as will be discussed below. 2.2 The Act of 1912 and subsequent amendments The original Article 11 of the 1912 Act closely resembled Article 4 of the 1881 Act. It no longer made specific mention of speech and writing as the modes of communication covered by the exemption. It made a clearer distinction between those texts that are exempt from copyright, and works that are exempt unless the rights are reserved. The former category includes laws, decrees, ordinances and all manner of regulations (such as by-laws) proclaimed by public authorities, as well as judicial and administrative decisions. The second category covered everything else published by or on behalf of public authorities, unless the rights 12 The Netherlands did not sign the Berne Convention until 1912, see Chapter 1 by Grosheide. 144
5 Government Works were reserved either in a general manner by law, decree or ordinance, or in a specific case as evidenced by notice on the work itself or upon its communication. The provision was placed in the section of the Copyright Act which details what works are protected. When presenting the proposal the government thought it needed no clarification. 13 And it was probably right, judging by the fact that in both houses of parliament only one issue was raised, namely the impact of Article 11 on commercial law publishers. New compared to the 1881 Act was the explicit reference to judicial decisions as exempt from copyright. In the early 20th century, as was still the case until very recently, all commercial publishers of law journals relied on a network of law clerks, judges and lawyers to obtain the texts of judgments. They would generally pay to obtain copies. Some members of parliament argued that provision should be made to protect publishers from others copying the judgments from their journals. 14 The government disagreed: judgments belonged to the people and were mostly given in public. That publishers paid to obtain a correct copy did not justify them claiming rights over its contents. 15 As it happens, there is only one reported case in which a commercial publisher argued it had rights in a collection of statutes despite the exclusion of legal texts from copyright. Of the three reported cases which deal with the scope of the exemption for official texts, in the two other cases the plaintiffs seeking protection were the state on behalf of the Staatsdrukkerij, and the national standards body NNI. Not surprisingly, disputes over the scope of the second leg of Article 11 were brought by state-owned corporations: the Dutch National Bank (Nederlandse Bank NV) and the postal services (PTT), since privatized. These cases will be discussed in detail below. In the century since its inclusion in the Copyright Act, the provision on government works has been revised on only two occasions, in 1972 and The overhaul of the Copyright Act in was rendered necessary by changes made to the Berne Convention (especially the Brussels Act of 1948) on topics other than government works. But the government took the opportunity to restructure the provisions on public sector information. Article 11 was split, its second leg made into a new Article 15b and placed in the Copyright Act s section 3 on limitations. Article 11 now consisted of only one paragraph which dealt with the exclusion of 13 Wet van 23 September 1912, Stb. 1912, This was felt to be particularly important as publishers could not claim copyright in collections of judgments, as the proposed provision on copyright in collections only included collections of protected works, not public domain materials. Kamerstukken II , 227, nr Kamerstukken II , 227, nr Stb. 1972,
6 Mireille van Eechoud official documents from copyright. The Commissie Auteursrecht had proposed to bring this text closer in line with the wording of the Berne Convention. 17 The government was of the opinion that no changes to the text of the abridged Article 11 were necessary, as it already complied with Article 2(4) Berne Convention. 18 The new Article 15b was slightly rephrased. From a systematic viewpoint, it was judged better to formulate it as a proper limitation. Unlike the old Article 11, which suggested that absent a reservation of rights, copyright ceased to exist upon communication of the work, the new Article 15b allows free use of (published) government works. 19 In the latter case of course, the copyright formally still exists, but the public authority is no longer in a position to exercise it. The practical differences seem negligible but the approach is indeed more in keeping with the legal characteristics of the right. As was noted above, under the Berne Convention, countries are free to limit or exclude protection of political speeches and speeches delivered in the course of legal proceedings (Article 2bis(3) BC). The Dutch legislator never saw reason to exclude such speeches from protection per se. But speeches given in the houses of parliament and in local and provincial council meetings were considered to come within the scope of Article 15b. Without a reservation of copyright, the authors of such speeches would effectively lose their copyright prerogatives. So provision was made in Article 15b for the exclusive right of the author to make a collection of legal or political speeches. The change was presented as necessary because of Article 2bis(3) BC. It should be noted that the lawmaker did not consider that technically the Berne Convention does not require that Dutch authors, or authors of speeches first published in the Netherlands, retain the right to publish a collection. Historically, the free use of Article 15b works existed irrespective of who owned the copyright in them. That is to say, it also applied where a public sector body made public works in which it did not own the copyright, either as corporate author, employer or following a transfer. The 2005 revision of the Copyright Act brought a significant change in this respect, as it limited the operation of Article 15b to cases where the public authorities own the copyright. Ironically, this change was proposed in the context of a policy drive to improve wider dissemination of information held by the public sector. An ambitious new 17 Kamerstukken II , 16740, nr. 4, p. 19, 26. The Commissie Auteursrecht proposed Art. 11 should read: No copyright exists in official texts of a legislative, administrative or judicial nature, or in official translations thereof. 18 Kamerstukken II , 16740, nr. 3, p In Beatrix Postzegel the Supreme Court made explicit that the reproduction and making public are the same concepts as those of Art. 12 and 13 Copyright Act. Supreme Court 29 May 1987, AMI 1987, nr. 5/105, comment Verkade, NJ 1987,
7 Government Works national policy framework to open up government-held information was first articulated in the mid-1990s. Its subsequent implementation in law was however a less ambitious affair. By the turn of the century the EU had entered the field, proposing to regulate the (commercial) exploitation of public sector information. The result was Directive 2003/98 on the Re-use of Public Sector Information of 2003 (PSI Directive). The Dutch Government opted for a quick and minimalist implementation, instead of taking advantage of the discretion the Directive gives member states to adopt more generous re-use policies. The PSI Directive is an instrument primarily meant to stimulate public sector bodies to foster exploitation of their rich data resources. Its objective is to make it easier for the private sector to develop new information products and services based on government information. The PSI Directive was implemented in the Dutch Freedom of Information Act in This Wet Openbaarheid van Bestuur (Wob) is the primary instrument that ensures a right of access to information held by public sector bodies. Its access regime applies to a broad range of public sector bodies across the executive and administrative branches of government, but not to parliament and courts. Since 2006, the Wet Openbaarheid van Bestuur has a separate part on re-use. It now requires public sector bodies 20 to allow the (commercial) re-use of information that is public, be it on the basis of the Freedom of Information Act itself or other laws. It does not prevent public sector bodies from reserving copyright under Article 15b. Far from it, in line with the PSI Directive, terms and conditions can be imposed on the commercial exploitation or other use. Such terms must however be non-discriminatory and transparent. And the legal basis for imposing terms of use arguably is ownership of intellectual property rights. 21 Since the PSI Directive explicitly excludes information in which third parties own copyright from its scope, the Dutch Government felt it appropriate to also exclude third party copyrights from Article 15b Copyright Act. Also, the new set up would guard against the adverse effects of the public authority failing to make a reservation for the benefit of the actual copyright owner. 22 That is why as 20 The access regime applies to a slightly different set of public sector bodies than the re-use regime, because the range of public sector bodies that the PSI Directive addresses is different from the bestuursorganen that the Wet Openbaarheid van Bestuur applies to. 21 For database rights, the highest administrative court held as much. Afd. Bestuursrechtspraak Raad van State 29 April 2009, AMI 2009/6, p , (B&W Amsterdam v. Landmark), Comment M. van Eechoud; see also case note Grandia in Computerrecht 2010, The government followed the advice of a study it commissioned, M. Reinsma & H. van der Sluijs, Naar ruimere openbaarheid en een vrij gebruik van bestuurlijke informatie, in opdracht van het ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijkrelaties, Directie Informatiebeleid Openbare Sector, December
8 Mireille van Eechoud of 2006, Article 15b only applies to works of which the public authorities are the maker (author) or rechtverkrijgende (successor in title). It is unclear where that leaves the provision on the exclusive right of the maker to publish his collective works even in the absence of a reservation. 23 Scope of current Article 11 Article 11 covers two types of documents, which traditionally correspond to the legislative and adjudicatory functions of government. As regards legislative documents, at the central level the information covered by Article 11 Copyright Act comprises acts of parliament, decrees issued by central government (socalled algemene maatregelen van bestuur, kleine koninklijke besluiten ), and ministerial decrees. At the local level ordinances or bylaws ( verordeningen ) can be issued by provincial or municipal authorities, water boards, and various (nondepartmental) public sector bodies with rulemaking competence such as product boards ( productschappen ) and industry boards ( bedrijfschappen ). 24 Judicial or administrative decisions include all decisions of bodies invested by law with the task of administering justice or taking decisions that are legally binding. It does not include binding advice and decisions by mediators or arbitration committees, since these are not bodies appointed by law, but by the parties to a dispute. 25 Article 11 does cover decisions by national courts and certain disciplinary tribunals. More important in terms of the volume of information concerned are administrative decisions in individual cases ( beschikking ). These relate to a host of areas and can be issued by for example ministers, local authorities or other administrative bodies. Examples are planning permissions issued by municipal authorities, the approval of drugs by the Medicine Evaluation Board (CBGM), or decisions by market regulators such as the Competition Authority (Mededingingsautoriteit). It is unclear to which extent so-called beleidsregels come within the scope of Article 11. Beleidsregels are rules that are conceived and applied by a public authority to either interpret or apply legal norms in binding decisions. They do not have general binding effect, so are not law in that sense. Arguably, as pseudolaw beleidsregels are so closely associated with legal norms 26 and their application 23 The change was criticized by this author in Vreemde bedgenoten: de Wob en de Richtlijn hergebruik overheidsinformatie, Mediaforum 2005/9, p Other authors welcomed it as a just repair of the danger that government inadvertently give away copyrights of third parties by not making a reservation: M. Reinsma, Wijziging artikel 15b Aw: de angel eruit?, AMI 2006/4, p ; D.J.G. Visser, Reactie in Mediaforum , p S. Gebrandy, Kort Commentaar op de Auteurswet 1912, Arnhem: Gouda Quint 1988, Art. 11, aant Gebrandy, Kort Commentaar op de Auteurswet 1912, Art. 11, Aant. 7, p The distinction between legal norms ( recht ) and policy rules (beleidsregels) is viewed by many as 148
9 Government Works in individual cases by way of administrative decisions, they should be treated the same for copyright purposes. This is the more so since beleidsregels are like acts, decrees and ordinances - generally published. They are in principle also subject to the norms of the Algemene Bestuurswet (General Act on Administration), which is the statute that contains general norms for administrative decision making and appeals. For other types of pseudo-law, i.e. guidelines, circulars, recommendations which are not based on formal (direct or mandated) powers of the issuing public authority, only a very liberal reading of Article 11 would exempt them from copyright. A controversial issue is under what conditions standards set by standardization bodies are exempt from copyright. Most standards in the Netherlands are developed in collaborative processes between partners from the public sector and private sector. National standards may also be closely associated with international standards, developed by such bodies as ISO (general), W3C (web), ETSI (telecommunications). Most national standards are not set by a public authority, but coordinated by the national standardization body NNI/NEN. It is a foundation under private law and its activities have no basis in public law, so Article 11 (or 15b for that matter) does not apply directly. However, regulation in the area of e.g. construction, food safety, health and the environment, may refer to NEN standards, effectively requiring compliance with such norms. For example, the Bouwbesluit which details technical requirements to be met in construction of housing, refers to about 50 different NNI standards. Does such a reference bring the standard within the scope of Article 11, that is: is there no longer copyright in the standard (assuming for the moment a standard is a literary work to begin with)? The Court of Appeal recently held that this is not the case. 27 By declaring a standard applicable such as happened here in the Bouwbesluit, it becomes generally binding. It does not however become a generally binding regulation within the meaning of the Grondwet (the Constitution) or Bekendmakingswet (Promulgation Act), i.e. not a legal instrument which must be proclaimed and published to have legal effect. Since the standard itself is set (and published) by a private body, Article 11 does not exempt it from copyright. 28 Note that if the above minimal if not absent, esp. after the Supreme Court decided that beleidsregels are recht within the meaning of Art. 99 Wet Rechterlijke Organisatie (i.e. courts should in principle apply them as law). For a discussion see W. Voermans, Beleidsregels, in B. M. J. van der Meulen (ed.), Info derde tranche Algemene wet bestuursrecht, Den Haag: Vuga 1998, p Court of Appeal Den Haag, 16 November 2010, cases /01 Staat v. Knooble B.V. c.s. & /01, Knooble v. NNI. LJN: BO4175. An appeal before the Supreme Court is pending. 28 The case has raised a storm not so much in copyright circles, but among administrative lawyers because of its implications for the (non)binding nature of standards. See Kees Stuurman, Public access to standards: some fundamental issues and recent developments, in: L. Mommers et al (ed.), Het binnenste 149
10 Mireille van Eechoud line of reasoning is applied to beleidsregels, these would probably also be outside the scope or Article 11. For judicial documents, the general opinion is that only judgments, orders and other actual decisions are exempt. Documents or speeches such as pleadings, briefs, opinions and other parts of the case files are copyright protected, provided of course the normal criteria for protection are met. The distinction is confirmed in (only) one reported case, which dealt with the question whether a solicitor acting on behalf of the state could invoke copyright to prevent publication of his pleadings. The judge held that where parts of party documents are incorporated verbatim in a judgment, they share its fate as a public domain text. 29 It is unclear to what extent a reference in the judgment or order to documents lodged (a complaint, writ of summons, statement of appeal, etc.) also triggers Article 11. Obviously, where documents are lodged by for example public officials, Article 15b could come into play. With respect to opinions of the advocate general to the Supreme Court, it has been argued that permission to communicate these conclusions to the public is implicit in the nature of the advocate general s advisory function. 30 Foreign official texts The earlier legislative history of Article 11 shows that no thought was given to its application in cases where the official texts did not emanate (directly) from domestic sources, but from supranational or foreign authorities. This comes as no surprise, after all, a hundred years ago there was no UN (its predecessor the League of Nations dates from 1919), no EU, WTO, nor permanent international courts. Nor were judgments from foreign courts routinely recognized by Dutch courts. A narrow reading of Article 11 limits it to texts emanating from Dutch public authorities. It is however generally assumed that Article 11 also extends to foreign acts, judgments, administrative decisions, etc. issued by equivalent foreign public authorities and legal institutions. 31 buiten, elaw: Leiden 2010, p For an in depth discussion of the copyright status of standards, see M. Elferink, Verwijzingen in wetgeving. Over de publiekrechtelijke en auteursrechtelijke status van normalisatienormen (diss. Leiden), Deventer: Kluwer 1998; for a discussion of similar problems in German copyright law, see Elferink, Auteursrecht op normalisatienormen revisited, in: Een Eigen Oorspronkelijk Karakter (Spoor bundel), 2007, p Pres. Amsterdam 14 December 1965, NJ 1966, 86 (Veegens v. Vos). 30 Gerbrandy, Kort Commentaar op de Auteurswet 1912, Art. 11, Aant. 8, p. 121, speaking of communication in a suitable manner and place. 31 D.W.F. Verkade, Tekst & Commentaar Intellectuele Eigendom, Auteurswet art. 11 (Kluwer online); Commissie Auteursrecht, Advies Aanpassing Auteurswet 1912 aan Akte Van Parijs van de Berner Conventie, Kamerstukken II , 16740, nr. 4, p. 26 (to make clear that Art. 11 also governs foreign official texts, the Commissie advised to change the wording so that it no longer referred to public authorities). 150
11 Government Works In its 2000 White Paper on improving access to government information, the cabinet states that Article 11 covers foreign official texts, but with the limitation that it should concern texts with legal effect in the Netherlands. 32 At a minimum then, there is no copyright in binding treaties, in secondary EC law such as directives and regulations and in European Commission decisions. Equally excluded from copyright are judgments and decisions of the European Courts of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights, other international courts, and decisions of foreign courts that are recognized here, for example judgments in civil and commercial matters, the recognition of which is in principle mandatory under EU law. 33 This is thought to be consistent with the purpose of Article 11 Copyright Act. 34 A more liberal reading of Article 11, including foreign and domestic texts alike, would make it easier to apply however. And as we have seen above, Article 2(4) Berne Convention allows the exclusion of foreign official texts generally, regardless of their legal effect in the Netherlands. Statutes are public documents par excellence, and for this reason consolidated versions of legislation are also regarded as excluded subject matter, even if produced by private sector actors. 35 What is more, the creation of a consolidated text cannot be said to result in an original literary work. The legal texts that are the building blocks of the consolidated version are in themselves public domain. No creative selection or arrangement is involved, as the consolidation results basically from executing the instructions of the later laws ( Art. X shall be read or Art. Y is repealed etc.). Nor, one might argue, should consolidated versions be protected as non-original writings ( geschriftenbescherming ) because this would defeat the purpose of excluding them from normal copyright. 36 Likewise the question could be raised whether an action in unfair competition should be available in Article 11 cases. The Supreme Court held that in principle it is not, in its landmark Staat v. Den Ouden judgment. The state had brought an 32 Nota Naar optimale beschikbaarheid van overheidsinformatie, Kamerstukken II 1999/2000, , nr See notably the recognition rules of the Brussels I Regulation (44/2001) and Lugano Convention. 34 J.H. Spoor, D.W.F. Verkade, D.J.G. Visser, Auteursrecht, Deventer: Kluwer 2005, p Explanatory memoranda fall under Article 15b DCA. 35 Spoor/Verkade/Visser, Auteursrecht, p. 138: Article 11 DCA and Article 8 Databases Act address not only works by public authorities, but by the private sector as well. Different: J.J.C. Kabel, comment on Pres. District Court The Hague 20 March 1998, AMI 1998, p. 65 (Vermande v. Bojkovski), rechtspraak/wettennu.html. English translation: P.B. Hugenholtz. 36 See for a discussion on the impact of database protection on collections of law and consolidated statutes: D. Visser, Het ministerie zwicht weer voor de uitgevers NJB 1998, nr. 31 p , A.A. Quaedvlieg, Het verschil tussen wetten en wettendatabanken, NJB 1998 nr. 34, p , M. Reinsma, Het ministerie zwicht niet, NJB 1998, nr. 34, p. 1565, D. Visser, Wetten zijn databanken, NJB 1998, nr. 34, p
12 Mireille van Eechoud action against Den Ouden, a company that produced a book with regulations for shipping (the inland waterways traffic code ) by copying the relevant legal texts from the official publications of the Staatsdrukkerij. The Staatsdrukkerij argued that taking the typeset text without adding any value was a wrongful act. Presumably this argument was run because obviously the text itself was excluded from copyright protection. The Supreme Court held that as a general rule (set out in earlier cases) profiting from another person s efforts should not be qualified as a wrongful act, in the absence of intellectual property rights. This is the more so, the Court added, in disputes like the one at hand, which is about the copying of subject matter that is explicitly excluded from copyright protection. The consensus is that Article 11 only concerns the naked text of (consolidated) statutes, decisions, judgments etc. Edited elements (headnotes, keywords, summaries, indexes, etc.) as are routinely added by publishers and other third parties are not exempt. 37 Scope of Article 15b Essentially, government works that do not fall within the narrower scope of Article 11 are subject to Article 15b. As to the type of works covered, it is not always clear where the boundaries lie between the two. Over time governments have taken contradicting positions. For example, in the early 1980s the government held that official translations of laws and other exempted texts are subject to Article 15b. 38 Later the government argued instead that official translations are Article 11 texts. 39 Contemporary policy documents on open government employ the term basic information of the democratic state to denote information that should be free from copyright restraints and made freely available online as a matter of public interest. This includes all kinds of preparatory legislative materials, session reports of representative bodies and other material that traditionally is outside 37 See Pres. District Court Den Haag 20 March 1998, AMI 1998/4, 65 (Vermande v. Boikovski): here a commercial publisher claimed non-original writings protection in technical information (about repeal, entry into force etc.) it had included in the texts of some 200 statutes published on CD for law students. The court did not find infringement because the quantity of information copied was too low. It could thus avoid answering the principled question whether intellectual property law enabled monopolization of such information. 38 The Commissie Auteursrecht was of the opinion foreign official texts should be covered by Art. 11. Kamerstukken II , 16740, nr. 4, p. 19, Kamerstukken II , 16740, nr. 3, p. 3; Nota Naar optimale beschikbaarheid van overheidsinformatie, Kamerstukken II 1999/2000, , nr. 7, p. 5, 11. Note however (p.11) that this White Paper designates international legal instruments and decisions as basic information in which no intellectual property exists, but for some (obscure) reason then seems to exclude European basisinformatie (primary and secondary EU law, court decisions and administrative decisions). See also Naar toegankelijkheid van overheidsinformatie, Kamerstukken II, , , nr
13 Government Works the scope of Article 11. As the law stands, such materials are covered by Article 15b, but this may change in the future (see section 5 below). The free use of public sector information under Article 15b covers acts of verveelvoudiging (reproduction and adaptation) and openbaarmaking (communication to the public and distribution). Notably, the free use is not limited to making verbatim or complete copies, as one lower court would have it, 40 but extends to any type of reproduction, e.g. also to making partial copies or adaptations (translations, abridgements etc.). 41 There are three cumulative criteria that must be met for works to be free to use under Article 15b. It must concern a work a) made public by or on behalf of the public authorities, b) in which the public authorities own copyright, and c) for which no reservation of rights has been made. Made public by or on behalf of public authorities When is a work made public? There are no reported cases that confirm we must look to the concept of openbaarmaking of Articles 1 and 12 Copyright Act. Such would be the logical reading however. 42 The use of identical terms in Articles 1, 12 and 15b dates back to the original 1912 Act. Legislative history does not indicate that a more limited, or indeed broader, notion was intended. 43 If indeed Article 15b refers to the broad meaning captured by the term openbaarmaking of Article 12 Copyright Act, 44 it is triggered when copies of a work are published in print, when a work is made available for online consultation (on websites, via access controlled database, etc.), broadcast, publicly performed, etc District Court Utrecht 6 April 1983 NJ 1983, 523 held that permitted reproduction under Art. 15b does not include making adaptations. The Court of Appeal (upheld by the Supreme Court) ruled that Art. 15b refers to the broad notion of reproduction as used in Articles 13 and 14. Supreme Court 29 May 1987, NJ 1987, 1003, m.nt. L. Wichers Hoeth. 41 See Spoor on the scope of the reproduction right, Chapter 8 below. 42 Same opinion: M. Reinsma, Comment on Art. 15b (AU II-Art. 15b-5), in: Brinkhof/Grosheide/Spoor (eds), Intellectuele Eigendom Commentaar (loose leaf ed.). 43 Spoor/Verkade/Visser, Auteursrecht, p. 144 argue for an autonomous interpretation of Art. 15b, instead of applying the definitions of communication to the public of Articles 1 and 12. This position seems inspired by a desire to curb application of the (old) Art. 15b in cases where the copyright does not rest with the public authority but a third party. 44 See Visser on Article 12, Chapter 9 below. 45 But see Subdistrict Court Sneek: the municipality that installs a sculpture commissioned by it in a public space does not communicate to the public under Art. 15b (note that the copyright in this case rested with the artist). Ktr. Sneek, 6 August 1998, IER 1998, 7. Making voting computers available for elections does not constitute making public the software that runs on these computers: Pres. District Court Amsterdam 14 June 2007, Computerrecht 2007, 116 (Wij vertrouwen stemcomputers niet). Art. 15b applies to patient information leaflet of registered pharmaceutical, where the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board must approve the leaflet and makes the text available for public consultation, as part of its decision to allow the medication on the market: Pres. District Court Breda 10 July 1996, Informatierecht/AMI 1997/2, p (Roche v. Centrafarm). 153
14 Mireille van Eechoud A question that was more easily answered in 1912 than today is when there is making public by or on behalf of de openbare macht. Translated here as public authorities, a more literal translation from Dutch would be the public powers. References to de openbare macht are sparse in contemporary statute law because the term is old-fashioned. Mostly they appear in relation to law enforcement. There is little copyright case law to guide interpretation. It is not consistent either, as is evident from the cases Bankbiljet (1968), Beatrix Postzegel (1987) and Internetnotarissen (1998). In Bankbiljet, 46 a clothing shop used images of banknotes in its advertisements. The Dutch Central Bank brought an action for copyright infringement of the note design. The case turned on the question whether Article 11 second paragraph (now Article 15b) applied. The Bank is not a legal entity formed under public law, but a corporation: a public limited company, in which all shares are owned by the state. Its institution and operation were at the time governed by the 1948 Bank Act. It had a legal monopoly on the issuing of banknotes. In first instance and on appeal the courts held that issuing banknotes is a public task, as the legal monopoly is exercised to aid a proper monetary system. The Bank argued it was not a public authority, nor did it issue money on behalf of a public authority. Rather, it was independent of the government and had issued money throughout its history, something the state had never done. The Supreme Court overturned the lower courts judgments. It held that being a legal entity under private law, the Bank is not a public authority. Nor does the fact that it assists in the exercise of a public task (contributing to a well-functioning financial system) make it act on behalf of public authorities. Furthermore, the issuing of banknotes is not a typical public task. 47 Interestingly, despite the Supreme Court s judgment in the banknote case, the Minister of Finance has on behalf of the State made several reservations on the design of coins. 48 The issuing of coins is entrusted to the Koninklijke Nederlandse Munt, a state-owned company. In Beatrix Postzegel 49 the Advocate General discusses at length the Supreme Court judgment in Banknote. He admits he finds the Court s reasoning difficult to apply and predicts that using a standard of typical public task will create much 46 Supreme Court 14 June 1968, NJ 1968, 276 (DNB v. C&A, Telegraaf Bankbiljet ). 47 That the 1948 Bank Act confirmed the legal monopoly to issue banknotes for an indeterminate time (earlier monopolies were temporary but invariably renewed) was of no importance. The 1998 Bank Act specifically lists the provision of bank notes (in cooperation with the European Central Banking system) as a (public) task. For a history see J. R. van Zwet, De ontwikkeling van de Bankwet Van s Konings oudste dogter tot integrerend onderdeel van het ESCB, Amsterdam: DNB See e.g. Stcrt. 1998, 23 (design euro), Stcrt. 2000, nr. 84 (design special European Championship football euro). 49 Supreme Court 29 May 1987, NJ 1987, 1003 (Struycken & Unger v. Riet Beatrix Zegel). 154
15 Government Works debate and legal uncertainty. The Advocate General prefers a minimum formal standard: Article 15b applies to any organ or entity that has no independent legal status and is a hierarchical part of central government and that communicates a work in the exercise of its legally defined task. 50 If these formal criteria are met, Article 15b applies, notwithstanding the possibility that Article 15b also governs cases where these formal criteria are not both met. Hence their function as minimum standard. In the Beatrix Postzegel case the minimum formal standard sufficed. The question was whether stamps issued by the national Postal Services ( PTT ) were made public by or on behalf of the public authorities. The stamp design was by two artists who had retained their copyright. The Supreme Court seemed to follow the Advocate General s double minimum standard. It considered that the PTT at the time was part of the Rijksdienst (state). It was not a separate legal entity, although by public law it was designated to operate under separate management, albeit under a responsible minister. On the basis of the Postal Act 1954 and implementing laws, the PTT has the exclusive task of issuing stamps. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals finding that the making public of the stamps by the PTT constituted making public by the public authorities. That the activities of the PTT are not limited to assisting with public tasks was deemed irrelevant. The Court of Appeal Arnhem in the later Internetnotarissen case held that a public authority is a body that has regulatory authority, i.e. a body that derives from the law the authority to make binding rules. In the case before it, it had to decide whether Article 15b applied to (the information on) a website where public notaries announced the details of executorial sales of properties. 51 The court set out that a public notary has statutory tasks (tasks instructed by law), and is an administrative organ within the meaning of the Algemene Wet Bestuursrecht (General Act on Administrative Law). However, that does not mean that in the exercise of their statutory tasks, public notaries must be considered as belonging to the public authorities within the meaning of Article 15b. This depends on the nature of the public tasks performed. The court considered that the legal role of the public notary in public executorial sales is primarily supervisory. Article 15b therefore does not apply to the public announcements notaries make of such sales. The court seems to apply three different criteria cumulatively. The first two are formal criteria: whether the agent involved is a public sector body, and whether it has statutory public tasks. Such formal criteria were also applied in Beatrix 50 Acting on instruction from and for third parties (i.e. publishing services provided to private sector customers) would thus be excluded. 51 Court of Appeal Arnhem 24 June 2008, Computerrecht 2008, 138 (Openbareverkopen.nl v. Internet notarissen) with comment O. Volgenant. 155
16 Mireille van Eechoud Postzegel, and as we have seen, promoted by the Advocate General in that case. But the Arnhem Court adds a third substantive criterion. Because essentially it asks for an assessment of the actual activity for which the Article 15b limitation is asserted, in relation to the statutory task with which it is associated. It is unclear how this standard operates precisely. Does Article 15b only apply if the publication of works is a core element of a statutory task? How is this to be determined, considering that statutory tasks tend not to be described in great detail in law itself, and ideas about the scope of a public task fluctuate considerably over time, depending on the political climate and the state of the nation s coffers? The formal approach of Beatrix Postzegel has the advantage of predictability, always a good characteristic for copyright limitations to be effective. What is more, the past decades witnessed a concerted effort to clarify and reorganize the mushrooming fourth sector with its plethora of semi-public bodies that was increasingly seen as problematic at the time of the Beatrix Postzegel case. Public tasks are more likely to be laid down by statute. Coherent criteria for defining public sector bodies are available from administrative law. It is therefore easier today to capture public authorities through application of formal criteria. These formal criteria may cast the net of Article 15b a little wider compared to also applying a substantive criterion of the typical or core public task. If an organization finds itself within reach of Article 15b, it can of course still retain its copyright prerogatives, just by making a reservation. A contemporary and functional way to delineate the public sector is by considering both the status of a legal entity and the presence of a public task (authority). This is the system followed in the Algemene Wet Bestuursrecht. 52 All legal entities under public law and their bodies would be public authorities in the sense of Article 15b. Public bodies with separate status as a public legal entity under Article 2:1 of the Burgerlijk Wetboek (Civil Code) are the state, provinces, municipalities, water boards and any other body with regulatory powers under the Grondwet (Constitution). In addition, Article 15b would capture natural persons or juridical persons under private law to the extent that they are invested with any public authority. Any works communicated either directly by them or on their behalf by third parties within the exercise of their public task would come within the scope of Article 15b. It is unclear to what extent, if at all, Article 15b applies to works communicated by foreign public authorities. 53 One could argue that at least where these foreign 52 Art 1:1 (1) Awb: (a) een orgaan van een rechtspersoon krachtens publiekrecht ingesteld, of (b) een ander persoon of college, met enig openbaar gezag bekleed. 53 D. Visser in Tekst & Commentaar Intellectuele Eigendom, Auteurswet Art. 15b supports application of Art. 15b to foreign authorities. 156
17 Government Works authorities the EU, WTO, UN come to mind also address Dutch audiences, a teleological reading supports application to foreign public sector bodies. To the extent that foreign government works do not come within the scope of Article 2(4) BC, the exemption of Article 15b will have to meet the requirements of the three-step test as laid down in international conventions (Article 9 BC, Article 13 TRIPS, Article 10 WCT) and in Article 5(5) Information Society Directive. Public authority must have copyright In Beatrix Postzegel the Supreme Court had held that neither the text nor the purpose of (old) Article 15b left room for an interpretation that limited the provision to cases in which the public authority owned copyright. So for works communicated to the public without a reservation of rights prior to 2006, it is still irrelevant who owns copyright in the work. As we have seen, the current Article 15b explicitly requires that the public authorities must own the copyright. It is not clear whether the actual public sector body that communicates the work must be the one to own the copyright, or whether it suffices if some public authority owns it, or co-owns it. Considering that a string of policy initiatives seek to stimulate information and data sharing between different parts of government, a liberal interpretation may be preferred. As it is, information (especially datasets) published by one public sector body may originate from a variety of public sector sources, so determining who owns what is often difficult. There are three principal ways in which legal entities such as the state, or a province, or one of the many non-departmental public sector bodies ( zelfstandig bestuursorgaan ) can own copyright. A public sector body may be right owner on the basis of the presumption of Article 8 on corporate authorship. It provides that if a work has been made public by and as coming from a public or private legal entity, 54 without reference to any natural person as the author of the work, the entity shall be regarded as the author and therefore copyright owner. The presumption is rebuttable. More likely, it will be initial owner on the basis of Article 7 Copyright Act. 55 A public sector body will typically own all the rights in works created in house by its staff. The opposite is true for works produced on commission by a third party: unless parties agree otherwise, the third party holds the copyrights in the work. A public sector body can of course acquire copyright through assignment. 56 It is unclear whether Article 15b requires a full transfer. A 54 This includes public sector bodies which are legal entities (state, municipality, water board) and the various private legal entities (companies, associations, foundations). 55 See Seignette on works made under employment, Chapter 5 above. 56 The requirements for transfer are discussed elsewhere, see Lenselink on copyright contracts, Chapter 7 below. 157
18 Mireille van Eechoud literal reading suggests the provision does not apply to situations where the public authority has merely acquired an exclusive licence. Public sector bodies routinely enlist private companies to supply information services. These may take the shape of commissioned reports, enquiries, data collection, software development, etc. Whether or not the public sector body has acquired the copyright is of course difficult to ascertain for third parties. Standard terms of agreement can give some guidance. For example, all parts of the central government are supposed to adhere to the standard conditions for agreements for the commissioning of services ( ARVODI 57 ) and for software and ICT services and products ( ARBIT ). 58 Broadly speaking, under the standard terms the government as commissioning party acquires all intellectual property rights in tailor-made services/products. For standard off-the-shelf products or services the supplier must grant a non-exclusive licence to be specified in the agreement. Making a reservation A public authority can only exercise its copyrights if it explicitly reserves the rights. There is little case law on the reservation requirement. 59 A reservation can be made in a variety of ways. The text of Article 15b implies that the preferred method is in a general manner by enacting it in an act of parliament ( wet ) or in delegated instruments, such as a royal or ministerial decree ( besluit ). It is reasonable to assume that such general decisions require publication. 60 A reservation can also be made in bepaalde gevallen i.e. in particular cases, by including a notification on the work itself or on copies thereof, or announcing a reservation when the work is made available to the public. The latter mode was meant to enable reservations for speeches, since their delivery in public, i.e. in a council meeting, is also regarded as openbaarmaken. In practice, particular reservations are much more common than general reservations. One rarely finds reservations in laws or delegated instruments. Most 57 Art. 23 Algemene Rijksvoorwaarden voor het verstrekken van opdrachten tot het verrichten van Diensten 2008, Besluit van de Minister-President, Minister van Algemene Zaken, van 26 February 2008, Nr , Stcrt. 2008, 52, p Art. 8 Algemene rijksvoorwaarden bij IT-overeenkomsten. Regeling van de Minister-President, Minister van Algemene Zaken, van 7 July 2010, nr , Stcrt nr Pres. District Court Den Bosch 10 April 2001, KG 2001, 117, LJN: AB2084 (Degrootewielen.nl), on proof of a reservation of copyright on materials posted on a municipal website. Pres. District Court Arnhem 10 November 2005, /KG ZA , LJN: AV0526 (Bestek Venlo), on specifications for public procurement in the area of waste management, commissioned by a municipality, where the reservation was made by the consultancy who authored the work (when Art. 15b still applied to non-public sector copyrighted works). 60 In this vein: Visser/Spoor/Verkade, Auteursrecht, at 3.65; Gerbrandy, Kort Commentaar op de Auteurswet 1912, p
19 Government Works serve to protect official designs or logos, e.g. the design of the euro, or the design of the logo and house style of the police. 61 The recent development of so-called basic registries, national core datasets that are to be used throughout the Dutch public sector, does seem to have raised awareness within the public sector of copyright issues. For example, the act that regulates the basic registry on addresses and buildings contains a reservation of copyright. 62 For the basic registries Kadaster (Land Registry) and Topografie (geographic data comprising a digital map of the Netherlands) a reservation was introduced in the Kadasterwet (Land Registry Act), 63 but only of database rights under the Databankenwet (Databases Act). Particular reservations are routinely made in print publications, but also on many websites of public bodies. Sometimes they are hidden in a help section, or more visibly present on each subpage. There is no consistency in the way copyright reservations are expressed, nor in the scope of the reservation itself. Since 2010, the website of the central government is published under a Creative Commons zero license, 64 a licence promoted by the Creative Commons organization for dedicating works to the public domain. By using this, the state essentially waives all its claims in copyright and related rights in materials contained on the website. For some materials on the website rights may be reserved. The website contains a wide range of materials, including legislative proposals. But legal information is more comprehensibly accessible through another government website overheid. nl, which contains rather ambiguous statements about copyright in its contents Developments in case law and doctrine That there is little recent case law on Articles 11 and 15b comes as no surprise. One can safely assume that public sector bodies are not quick to assert copyright before courts, for one because the economic interests involved tend to be minor or even absent. What is more, now that Article 15b no longer applies to non-public sector copyrights, there is even less occasion for conflict. Many of the questions raised previously in doctrine concern the interpretation of Article 15b in light 61 Auteursrechtelijk voorbehoud ontwerp EK 2000-munt (Stcrt. 2000, 84), Regeling auteursrecht beeldmerk euro (Stcrt. 1996, 191), Regeling auteursrecht handboek huisstijl en logo politie (Stcrt. 1993, 131), Regelingen voorbehoud auteursrecht (Nederlandse zijde euromunt, Stcrt. 1998, 232), Regelingen voorbehoud auteursrecht (Europese zijde euromunten, Stcrt. 1998, 232), Voorbehoud auteursrecht logo Nederlandse politie (Stcrt. 1993, 2). 62 Art. 33a Wet basisregistraties adressen en gebouwen, Stb. 2008, Introduced by the Wet Basisregistraties Kadaster en Topografie: Art. 7v Kadasterwet, rev. Stb. 2007, See 65 contains the statement that the Copyright act art.11 provides that no copyright exists in laws, decisions and bylaws. This means that this information may be freely re-used, unless the publication indicates otherwise. 159
20 Mireille van Eechoud of the position of a third party author. Who has to make the reservation, the copyright owner or the public sector body? What are the ramifications for public sector body and author when no reservation is made? Does the author retain the ability to exercise (some of) his moral rights? Such questions have lost most of their significance. There are also other developments in government policy that probably contribute to the fact that copyright in public sector information gives rise to few conflicts and thus cases. One is the progression of open government initiatives, which will be briefly discussed below. Another concerns the public sector competing in commercial markets. Since the mid-1990s, the prevention of unfair competition by public sector bodies has become a policy objective of subsequent governments. The public tasks of large information producing public sector bodies like the Office for Statistics ( CBS ), the Royal Meteorological Service ( KNMI ) and the Land Registry ( Kadaster ) are more clearly regulated these days. Basically such institutions are no longer allowed to engage in commercial activities. Arguably, copyright as an instrument of control matters less to them. Other public sector bodies also are now bound by specific rules when competing with the private sector. It has taken over ten years to legislate on this matter, but as of March 2011 the Competition Act contains specific rules for public sector bodies engaging in economic activities (undertakings). 66 For our purposes, a key provision is that data acquired in the course of public tasks can only be used for commercial purposes by a public sector body if the same information is also available for re-use by other parties. The Competition Act thus introduced a mandatory licence for certain public sector intellectual property. As is often the case with buzz terms, what open government is exactly no one knows. 67 By most accounts one of its characteristics is that public sector bodies actively publish information. Not only information of the sort that is relevant in terms of accountability for their own functioning, but also information or raw data that civil society and businesses can use for their own purposes. 68 Open government initiatives in the Netherlands until now have operated largely within the existing legal framework. So far such initiatives have led to little change in the citizen s statutory rights to access, notably under the Freedom of Information Act. 66 Aanpassing Mededingingswet ter invoering van gedragsregels voor de overheid, Stb. 2011, See for a comparative analysis made for the Dutch Government: Tijs van den Broek, Noor Huijboom, Arjanna van der Plas, Bas Kotterink en Wout Hofman, Open Overheid - Internationale beleidsanalyse en aanbevelingen voor Nederlands beleid, TNO rapport 35440, For a good introduction and analysis of current open government data movements, see Access-Info Europe and Open Knowledge Foundation, Beyond Access: The Right to (Re)Use Public Information, Jan [http://www.access-info.org/documents/access_docs/advancing/beyond_access_7_ January_2011_web.pdf]. 160
1 Behavioral Targeting Legal Developments in Europe and the Netherlands Frederik Zuiderveen Borgesius Ph.D researcher, focusing on behavioral targeting and privacy law Institute for Information Law, University
Creative commons licensing for public sector information Opportunities and pitfalls
Creative commons licensing for public sector information Opportunities and pitfalls Mireille van Eechoud Brenda van der Wal Institute for Information Law University of Amsterdam The Netherlands http://www.ivir.nl
Damages Fund for Violent Crimes Act
Damages Fund for Violent Crimes Act Article 1 The following definitions shall apply for the purposes of implementing the Act: the Fund: the Damages Fund for Violent Crimes referred to in Article 2; the
Transportation and Arbitration: A Love Story?
Transportation and Arbitration: A Love Story? Organized by the Arbitration and Transport Groups WS 06 National Report of the Netherlands Jikke Biermasz Kneppelhout & Korthals Rotterdam Boompjes 40 3011