Judgment of the Court Grand Chamber of 26 April 2022, Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark Maximum duration of internal border control, C-368/20 and C-369/20

• Date: 26 April 2022
• Year: 2022

5

which, in order to be found unlawful, would require an independent assessment of the content by

them.

5

In that regard, it may be that availability of unauthorised content can only be avoided upon

notification of rightholders. Fifthly, Directive 2019/790 introduces several procedural safeguards, in

particular the possibility for users to submit a complaint where they consider that access to uploaded

content has been wrongly disabled, as well as access to out-of-court redress mechanisms and to

efficient judicial remedies.

6

Sixthly, that directive requires the European Commission to organise

stakeholder dialogues to discuss best practices for cooperation between the providers and

rightholders, and also to issue guidance on the application of that regime.

7

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the obligation on the providers to review, prior to its

dissemination to the public, the content that users wish to upload to their platforms, resulting from

the specific liability regime established in Article 17(4) of Directive 2019/790, has been accompanied

by appropriate safeguards by the EU legislature in order to ensure respect for the right to freedom of

expression and information of users, and a fair balance between that right, on the one hand, and the

right to intellectual property, on the other. It is for the Member States, when transposing Article 17 of

that directive, to take care to act on the basis of an interpretation of that provision which allows a fair

balance to be struck between the various fundamental rights protected by the Charter. Further, when

implementing the measures transposing that article, the authorities and courts of the Member States

must not only interpret their national law in a manner consistent with that article but also make sure

that they do not act on the basis of an interpretation of the article which would be in conflict with

those fundamental rights or with the other general principles of EU law, such as the principle of

proportionality.

II. BORDER CONTROLS, ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION: BORDER CONTROLS

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 April 2022, Landespolizeidirektion

Steiermark (Maximum duration of internal border control), C-368/20 and C-369/20

Link to the complete text of the judgment

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Free movement of persons –

Regulation (EU) 2016/399 – Schengen Borders Code – Article 25(4) – Temporary reintroduction of border

control at internal borders for a maximum total duration of six months – National legislation providing for

a number of successive periods of border control resulting in that duration being exceeded – Non-

compliance of such legislation with Article 25(4) of the Schengen Borders Code where the successive

periods are based on the same threat or threats – National legislation requiring, on pain of a penalty, a

passport or identity card to be presented when the internal border control is carried out – Non-

compliance of such an obligation with Article 25(4) of the Schengen Borders Code when the border

control itself is contrary to that provision

From September 2015 to November 2021, the Republic of Austria reintroduced border control at its

borders with Hungary and Slovenia a number of times. In order to justify the reintroduction of the

5

Article 17(8) of Directive 2019/790.

6

The first and second subparagraphs of Article 17(9) of Directive 2019/790.

7

Article 17(10) of Directive 2019/790.