We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 29

BrandWrites - May 2015
  • Bird & Bird
  • Australia, Belgium, China, European Union, Finland, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Singapore, United Kingdom
  • May 7 2015

The Court of Appeal of England and Wales has found that the sale by the well-known retailer Topshop of a t-shirt bearing an image of the famous pop


Your pocket guide to VAT on digital e-commerce
  • Bird & Bird
  • Belgium, European Union, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom
  • July 31 2014

Digital e-commerce is a rapidly growing business market within the EU, emerging as a key economic driver. However, as acknowledged by the EU


Brussels court refers two questions to the ECJ on injunctions against ISPs over illegal P2P file sharing
  • Bird & Bird
  • Belgium
  • May 10 2010

In a case between the collecting society SABAM and internet service provider Scarlet, relating to the measures which can be imposed on Scarlet to prevent illegal peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing over its network, the Brussels Court of Appeal has referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) two questions about the legality (including a test of proportionality) of the injunctions requested by SABAM


Belgium adopts rules allowing electronic employment contracts
  • Bird & Bird
  • Belgium
  • December 17 2007

Belgium has adopted new rules permitting the conclusion of employment contracts electronically, provided secure electronic signature and archiving systems are used


Belgian tax authority issues guidelines on electronic conversion of paper invoices
  • Bird & Bird
  • Belgium
  • August 31 2008

Since 2004 Belgian companies have been able to invoice their customers electronically


Injunctions against ISPs - the SabamScarlet ruling
  • Bird & Bird
  • Belgium
  • October 23 2007

The President of the Brussels Court of First Instance (the ‘President’) ruled on 29 June 2007 that an Internet Service Provider (ISP) active in the Belgian market must implement technical measures to prevent illegal peer-to-peer music file exchanges


Belgium adopts legal framework for certain trusted third party services
  • Bird & Bird
  • Belgium
  • October 23 2007

The Belgian authorities have enacted a legal framework regulating certain trusted third party services


Brussels Court of First Instance decisions - 26 November 2004 and 29 June 2007
  • Bird & Bird
  • Belgium
  • April 21 2011

In 2004, SABAM (the Belgian Society of Authors, Composers and Publishers) requested an injunction against Internet Access Provider Scarlet to prevent its customers from committing copyright infringements using peer-to-peer software and therefore (requiring the provider?) to adopt proactive measures to prevent the unauthorized exchange of protected material


Brussels Court of Appeal decision - 28 January 2010
  • Bird & Bird
  • Belgium
  • April 21 2011

The Court of Appeal decided, before examining the technical feasibility of filtering measures, to seek a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding whether a requirement on an Internet Access Provider to implement traffic-filtering mechanisms is consistent with EU legislation (and more precisely with its IP, e-Commerce, Data protection and e-Privacy regulations) as well as with the fundamental right of privacy and freedom of expression


Brussels court refers two questions to the ECJ on injunctions against ISPs over illegal P2P file sharing
  • Bird & Bird
  • Belgium
  • May 10 2010

In a case between the collecting society SABAM and internet service provider Scarlet, relating to the measures which can be imposed on Scarlet to prevent illegal peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing over its network, the Brussels Court of Appeal has referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) two questions about the legality (including a test of proportionality) of the injunctions requested by SABAM