TOWARDS A HARMONISED FRAMEWORK FOR COPYRIGHT ENFORCEMENT IN THE DIGITAL SINGLE MARKET: THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN DIRECTIVE 2019/790 AND DIRECTIVE 2004/48/EC
2026, 110, No. 1
University of Warsaw, Doctoral School of Social Sciences
Publication date
Publishing model
License type
Field
Discipline
Language of publication
Downloads
PDF 414 KB
Number of views:0
Number of downloads:1
Crossref citations:0
Altmetric score:0
Abstract
EU copyright law has been significantly recalibrated by Directive (EU) 2019/790 (DSM Directive), which adapts substantive rules to digital uses, while enforcement mechanisms continue to rest primarily on Directive 2004/48/EC (IPRED). Although the DSM Directive has already attracted considerable academic attention, the enforcement dimension of its rules – particularly their relationship with IPRED – has received limited treatment. The article analyses how the two directives are to be read and applied together. Drawing on the texts of both directives and relevant CJEU case law, the study contends that the DSM and IPRED should be interpreted as complementary, with IPRED’s horizontal procedural toolkit applying unless expressly displaced by DSM rules. Particular attention is paid to the enforcement implications of Article 17 DSM, which changes platform liability yet does not provide a self-standing enforcement code. The analysis identifies four enforcement difficulties. First, where an online content-sharing service provider satisfies the Article 17(4) conditions and is exempt from liability, the Directive does not clarify whether it may be classified as an intermediary under IPRED. Second, the indeterminacy of the ‘best efforts’ standard determines the OCSSP’s classification under IPRED. Third, Article 17 liability makes damages under Article 13 IPRED difficult to quantify and prove, since valuation hinges on platform metrics difficult to obtain under Article 6 IPRED’s ‘specified evidence’ requirement. Fourthly, Article 17(9) introduces a mandatory internal complaint and redress mechanism for users, yet its relationship with judicial proceedings remains uncertain, particularly as regards sequencing and admissibility. The article highlights the systemic risks of treating the DSM as an implied repeal of IPRED and proposes targeted de lege ferenda solutions aimed at clarifying procedural classification, specifying ‘best efforts’ through measurable, proportionate benchmarks, facilitating access to platformhelddata and encouraging structured valuation benchmarks, as well as confirming that recourse to Article 17(9) is without prejudice to judicial enforcement.
Keywords:
Bibliography
Barcik J, ‘Pojęcie i źródła prawa Unii Europejskiej’ in J Barcik and R Grzeszczak (eds), Prawo Unii Europejskiej (CH Beck 2022)
Barazza S, ‘The Enforcement Directive and invalidation procedures: an unsurprising negative verdict’ (2013) 8(4) Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice 274
Cerny M, ‘Directive on the enforcement of intellectual property rights’ (2005) 88(2–3) Pravny Obzor 187
Celedonio JAG, ‘Esa ambición desmedida: la directiva 2004/48/CE relativa al respeto de los derechos de propiedad intelectual y su compleja aplicación. El rol del observatorio europeo de las vulneraciones de los derechos de propiedad intelectual’ (2024) 38(1) Revista la Propiedad Inmaterial 109
Clark B and Schubert M, ‘Odysseus between Scylla and Charybdis? The ECJ rules in L’Oréal v eBay’ (2011) 6(12) Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice 880
Dusollier S, ‘The 2019 Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market: Some Progress, a Few Bad Choices, and an Overall Failed Ambition’ (2020) 57(4) Common Market Law Review 979
Faludi Gr and Bacher G, ‘The Relationship Between the Right to Information Set Out in the Enforcement Directive and a Service Provider’s Liability Set Out in the E-Com Directive’ (2006) Mondaq <https://www.mondaq.com/it-internet/35526> accessed 25 September 2025
Gheorghiu G, ‘Orientări cu privire la anumite aspecte ale Directivei 2004/48/CE a Parlamentului European şi a Consiliului privind respectarea drepturilor de proprietate intelectuală’ (2024) 1 Romanian Journal of Intellectual Property Law 123
Grisse K, ‘After the storm—examining the final version of Article 17 of the new Directive (EU) 2019/790’ (2019) 14(11) Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice 887
Husovec M and Quintais JP, ‘How to License Article 17? Exploring the Implementation Options for the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms under the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive’ (2021) 70(4) GRUR International 325
Liu Z, ‘Evaluation on the EU legal safeguards for users of the liability-encumbered OCSSP in light of CJEU and Strasbourg case laws’ (2023) SSRN <https://ssrn.com/abstract=4348969> accessed 25 September 2025
Markiewicz M, ‘Publiczne komunikowanie utworu w Internecie w prawie UE (dyrektywa 2001/29 vs dyrektywa 2019/790) – czy “istnieje” możliwy do określenia zakres tego prawa?’ (2022) 27(1) Bialystok Legal Studies 173
Markiewicz R, Prawo autorskie na jednolitym rynku cyfrowym. Dyrektywa Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (UE) 2019/790 (Wolters Kluwer 2021)
Norrgård M, ‘The role conferred on the national judge by directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights’ (2005) 6(4) ERA Forum 503
Nowak-Gruca A, ‘Procesowe środki ochrony autorskich praw majątkowych na tle implementacji dyrektywy 2004/48/WE w sprawie egzekwowania praw własności intelektualnej’ (2008) 1 Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Prace z Prawa Własności Intelektualnej 53
Padley H, ‘EU legislation and UK implementation: the enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Directive’ (2004) 15(8) Entertainment Law Review N72
Peguera M, ‘Is the Spanish implementation of Art. 17 CDSM compatible with EU Law?’ (2021) Kluwer Copyright Blog <https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/11/11/is-the-spanish-implementation-of-art-17-cdsm-compatible-with-eu-law/> accessed 25 September 2025
Reichman JH, ‘Enforcing the Enforcement Procedures of the TRIPS Agreement’ (1996) 37 Virginia Journal of International Law 335
Rosati E, Copyright in the Digital Single Market: Article-by-Article Commentary to the Provisions of Directive 2019/790 (Oxford University Press 2021)
Rosati E, ‘The legal nature of Article 17 of the Copyright DSM Directive, the (lack of) freedom of Member States, and why the German implementation proposal is not compatible with EU law’ (2020) The IPKat <https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2020/08/the-legal-nature-of-article-17-of.html> accessed 25 September 2025
Szczepanowska-Kozłowska K, ‘Damages and legal costs under the Enforcement Directive in the light of rulings of the European Court of Justice’ (2023) 23 ERA Forum 567
Stamatoudi I and Torremans P, ‘The Digital Single Market Directive’ in I Stamatoudi and P Torremans (eds), EU Copyright Law. A Commentary (2nd edn, Edward Elgar Publishing 2021)
Stamatoudi I and Vrins O, ‘The Enforcement Directive’ in I Stamatoudi and P Torremans (eds), EU Copyright Law. A Commentary (2nd edn, Edward Elgar Publishing 2021)
Spoerri T, ‘On Upload-Filters and Other Competitive Advantages for Big Tech Companies under Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market’ (2019) 10(2) Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law 173
Trapova A, ‘From public to private enforcement: Inclusivity and copyright law’ in C Sappa (ed), Research Handbook on Intellectual Property Rights and Inclusivity (Edward Elgar Publishing 2024)
Tzanou M, ‘Balancing Fundamental Rights: United in diversity? Some Reflections on the Recent Case Law of the European Court of Justice on Data Protection’ (2010) 6 Croatian Yearbook of European Law and Policy 53
Visean V, ‘The Implementation of Directive 2004/48/EC in Romania’ (2009) 4 Romanian Journal of Intellectual Property Law 140
Wilman F, ‘A decade of private enforcement of intellectual property rights under IPR Enforcement Directive 2004/48: where do we stand (and where might we go)?’ (2017) 42(4) European Law Review 509
Other articles from the issue
01.07.2026
Alf Rosscriminal responsibilitycompatibilismdeterminismfree willALF ROSS ON FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY: A CRITICAL APPRAISAL
Wojciech Załuski
01.07.2026
legal interpretationintentionalismoriginalismjudicial discretionlegislative historyMISGUIDED COPYING OF ANGLO-AMERICAN PATTERNS? INTENTIONALISM AS A REASONABLE PROPOSAL FOR A CONTEMPORARY CONTINENTAL JUDGE
Paweł A Boike
01.07.2026
de minimis aidState aidpublic aidState aid lawTHE UGLY SISTER OR THE CINDERELLA: REMARKS ON THE NEW DE MINIMIS AID REGIME
Rajmund Molski