The High Court has declined jurisdiction to hear a copyright and authorship claim brought by Hugh Kearns and Irish Bartering Services Limited, trading as Contranet, against the European Commission.
In a judgment delivered on 21 October 2005, Mr Justice Herbert held that the claim concerned alleged damage caused by a Community institution or its servants acting in the course of their duties. He concluded that Articles 235 and 288(2) of the EC Treaty gave the European Court of Justice exclusive jurisdiction over that kind of claim.
The plaintiffs’ plenary summons sought declarations that they were the author, licensee and legal and beneficial owners of copyright in an artistic work called the “Contra Device” or “the Euro Symbol”. They alleged that the Commission, its servants or agents knowingly infringed their copyright and right of paternity, and falsely attributed authorship to others. They also claimed damages for copyright infringement, false attribution and conversion, among other relief.
The Commission applied to dismiss the proceedings for want of jurisdiction. Its appearance in the case expressly stated that it was entered to contest the High Court’s jurisdiction. The plaintiffs argued that the court could hear the claim under provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, the Berne Convention and Irish copyright law. Kearns also argued that the alleged conduct took place in Ireland and that requiring him to pursue the matter elsewhere would be unfair.
Justice Herbert found that the claim was framed solely against the Commission, with no allegation against the Irish Government, and that it was based on non-contractual liability under Article 288(2). He said Irish copyright remedies could not override the applicable primary law of the EC Treaty. He also found nothing in the Berne Convention inconsistent with the Treaty’s jurisdictional provisions.
The judge did not decide whether Regulation 44/2001 applied to the independent cause of action under Article 288(2). He said that question was unnecessary to determine because the Treaty, as primary law, prevailed over conflicting secondary legislation. The High Court declined jurisdiction to hear and determine the action. The judgment records no determination of the underlying copyright or authorship allegations and makes no order on damages.