International Journal of Law And Criminology
19
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue08 2025
PAGE NO.
19-22
10.37547/ijlc/Volume05Issue08-04
Defining Legal Boundaries to Combat Unfair
Competition: An Analysis of Eu Law and International
Practice
Abdurakhimov Abdumalik Rakhmonkulovich
Independent PhD Researcher, Uzbekistan
Received:
09 June 2025;
Accepted:
05 July 2025;
Published:
07 August 2025
Abstract:
This article examines the issue of combating unfair competition within both international and national
legal frameworks. The author explores the scope and limitations of exclusive rights in relation to intellectual
property, particularly focusing on the newly introduced neighboring rights of press publishers as outlined in
Directive (EU) 2019/790. Using France’s legal and judicial response to Google’s behavior as a case study, the paper
analyzes how competition authorities have intervened to protect press publishers from abuse of dominant market
position by digital platforms. The article also considers the lack of clear legal boundaries in digital environments
and the importance of adapting national antitrust policies to reflect evolving international standards. In doing so,
it proposes a framework for legal harmonization and balanced rights enforcement in the digital economy.
Keywords:
Unfair competition, intellectual property, exclusive rights, antitrust law, digital economy, Directive
2019/790, news aggregators, legal boundaries, French law, Google, competition authorities, abuse of rights.
Introduction:
The necessity of establishing legal norms
regulating intellectual property rights on the Internet
arises from the need to strike a balance between the
interests of rights holders of intellectual property
objects and users, who, in accordance with the
Constitution of the Russian Federation and the
constitutions of other countries, have the right to
access and disseminate information. However, defining
clear boundaries and limits of exclusive rights to
specific intellectual property objects proves to be quite
difficult, as various conflicting factors influence the
scope of such protection in each individual case.
The Russian scholar S.A. Belyatskin accurately noted:
“The author’s exclusive and inalienable right to the
products of intellectual creation, recognized and widely
protected with respect to third parties, meets its limits
where the rights of society represented by its individual
members to access works of art begin, a right which is
also recognized and affirmed by law
”
.
One of the most current and complex issues related to
the limits of exclusive rights concerns the boundaries
and scope of the newly introduced European press
publishers’ right to control the use of their publications
in the online environment. The EU Directive on
Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Single
Market outlines the general provisions of this right,
while leaving the details of its implementation to the
discretion of individual EU Member States.
According to the provisions of the Civil Code, there may
also be cases in which the use of the results of
intellectual
activity
is
allowed
without
the
authorization of the right holder, while still preserving
their right to receive income, since this entitlement is
considered an integral part of the exclusive right.
N.V. Buzova distinguishes two groups of such
limitations:
1.
Free use of works without the author’s consent and
without payment of remuneration.
2.
Use under a compulsory license without the author’s
consent, but with payment of remuneration.
A.G. Matveev, in defining the limitations of exclusive
copyright, observes:
"The copyright institution, which includes rules that
restrict exclusive rights and allow the public to freely
International Journal of Law And Criminology
20
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc
International Journal of Law And Criminology (ISSN: 2771-2214)
use protected works, is referred to in various ways
across different legal systems and legal doctrines. In
foreign legislation, the terms limitations on copyright
or limitations on exclusive rights are most commonly
used. This tradition is followed, for example, by the
United States, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland,
and Japan. Less frequently used are terms such as Acts
permitted in relation to copyright-protected works
(United Kingdom) or Exceptions to the author’s
proprietary rights (Belgium). In general, one can agree
with the conclusion of J.A.L. Sterling that what is
referred to as 'limitations' in one legal system may be
called 'exceptions' in another”
.
V.P. Gribanov believed that any subjective right, as a
measure of the right holder's permissible conduct, has
defined boundaries in terms of its content². The
boundaries of a right represent a sphere of control
within a specific legal framework accessible to the right
holder. Accordingly, it can be concluded that the
exclusive rights granted to press publishers under the
EU Directive on Copyright and Related Rights in the
Digital Single Market may be subject to the following
types of limitations:
Temporal boundaries. It is worth noting that during the
discussion of Directive 2019/790, proposals were made
to set the duration of the exclusive right to use press
publications at varying lengths
—
from one year to
twenty years. A consensus was ultimately reached on a
two-year term for the validity of such exclusive rights.
The establishment of temporal boundaries helps strike
a balance between the interests of press publishers and
news aggregators.
Territorial boundaries. Given that the Internet is a
global communication environment, defining “the
territory within which the right holder controls the use
of the intellectual property object”
is particularly
challenging. In practice, the determination of territorial
boundaries of exclusive rights is carried out through the
national legislation of the country in which the
publisher is registered as a legal entity.
Object-based boundaries. It should be noted that the
identification of object-based boundaries within the
scope of exclusive rights is a subject of debate, since
the definition and criteria for the protectability of an
object are established within the framework of
relatively
autonomous
regulatory
systems.
Nevertheless, referring to object-based boundaries of
exclusive rights is practically convenient.
According to Paragraph 33 of the preamble to Directive
2019/790, press publications primarily contain literary
works but may also include photographs and videos.
The exclusive right of an author arises from the
uniqueness of the form in which their thoughts are
expressed
—
this form being an extension of the
author’s consciousness and psychological world
.
This gives rise to the question of what forms of press
publications may be lawfully used. In order to define
the object-related boundaries of permissible use, it is
necessary to determine which characteristics of a press
publication fall under the control of the right holder, as
well as to assess the extent to which elements of the
object are being used, so as to avoid infringement when
third parties use press content.
When creating press publications, authors resort to
specific literary genres. The genre of a press article
involves a unique form of interpreting facts and its own
internal logic of pr
esenting material. The “picture of the
day” is shaped by the entire spectrum of journalistic
genres and the individual creativity of the author.
During the formulation of rights for press publishers in
Directive (EU) 2019/790, the issue was raised
concerning the use of hyperlinks, single words, and very
short excerpts by news aggregators on their websites.
However, the preamble to Directive 2019/790 clarifies
that “the use of individual words or very short extracts
should not adversely affect the rights of press
publishers”
.
As of today, no EU Member State has proposed a
quantitative threshold defining the exact number of
words or characters that may be freely used. Member
States implementing the provisions of the Directive
often refer in their explanatory notes to Recital 58 of
the preamble to Directive 2019/790, which clarifies
that the use of excerpts from press publications should
not undermine the effectiveness of the right
—
namely,
such excerpts should not substitute the original
publication or discourage users from accessing it via a
proper link.
Content-related boundaries. In 1996, the WIPO
Copyright Treaty established a new exclusive right for
rights holders: the right to make a work available to the
public. The use of the new neighboring right introduced
by Directive 2019/790 is limited by the modes and
conditions set out in the Directive itself. For example,
when a press publication is transferred to a publisher
for further publication on their website, this involves
making the content available to the public from any
place and at any time at their discretion. Accordingly,
the Directive’s provisions on the use of press
publications owned by publishers stipulate that
reproduction and communication of such publications
to the public require the publishe
r’s authorization.
When analyzing the right to make works available to
the public, it should be noted that legislators have not
defined clear content-related boundaries for this right.
As a result, it can be difficult in certain cases to
International Journal of Law And Criminology
21
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc
International Journal of Law And Criminology (ISSN: 2771-2214)
determine the limits of permitted use of press
publications. The permitted use of intellectual property
in some jurisdictions is framed under the concept of
Panoramafreiheit
(German
for
“freedom
of
panorama”). For instance, in 2016, the French
Parliament adopted a law introducing limitations on
freedom of panorama, which restricts the use of
publicly accessible intellectual property objects. This
limitation applies to private individuals and only for
non-commercial purposes. These provisions were
incorporated into Article L.122-5 of the French
Intellectual Property Code.
Thus, it is assumed that establishing clear limits on the
exercise of exclusive rights by news publishers over the
online use of their publications by news aggregators
will, on the one hand, support the generation of
revenue for press publishers, and on the other hand,
serve as an incentive for creative development.
Considering that France was the first EU Member State
to implement the provisions of Directive (EU) 2019/790
into its national legislation, it is worthwhile to examine
judicial practice concerning the abuse of rights by news
aggregators in their use of press publications.
In 2019, France incorporated into its legislation the
provisions of Article 15 of Directive 2019/790, which
established a framework for regulating interactions
between press publishers and news aggregators
through licensing arrangements. Following the
adoption of this provision, Google announced that,
starting from the date the law came into effect, it
would no longer make available to the public content
published by press publishers
—
unless those publishers
granted Google express authorization.
Given that the display of short excerpts by a news
aggregator may indirectly contribute to increased
readership on the press publisher’s web
site, many
publishers accepted Google’s conditions. Out of
concern for losing the potential increase in website
traffic and the corresponding revenue, they granted
Google the right to use their content free of charge.
The act of granting a free license to news aggregators
may be interpreted as a waiver of rights by press
publishers. It should be noted that, although the
legislation provides for fair remuneration, it does not
explicitly prohibit the granting of free licenses or the
possibility of waiving the
new right. As such, Google’s
actions appear to be fully consistent with the letter of
the law.
Having determined that Google had effectively
compelled press publishers to grant free licenses, the
publishers attempted to rectify this perceived
unfairness by filing a complaint with the French
Competition Authority, alleging abuse of a dominant
market position. In 2020, the authority issued a
provisional decision favoring the French press
publishers³. The authority found that Google held a
dominant position in the market for online services and
therefore had the capacity to abuse that position by
pressuring publishers into accepting free licenses that
were less favorable to them. In the view of the
authority, Google was a “crucial and indispensable
player in ensuring the economic viability of press
publishers.” As such, the potential loss of traffic from
Google was considered sufficient to create an
imbalance that could result in abuse of dominance.
From a formal legal perspective, however, Google had
not violated any legislative provisions, since the French
implementation of Directive (EU) 2019/790 did not
prohibit free licenses. Nonetheless, the Competition
Authority’s ruling filled this regulatory gap by requiring
that Google pay remuneration for the use of press
publications. To more clearly define the boundaries of
permissible use, the authority established the following
obligations for Google:
1. Google must conduct negotiations in good faith
concerning the duration, conditions, and amount of
remuneration;
2. Google must provide press publishers with the
necessary information to allow a fair assessment of
compensation;
3. Google must maintain the display of content in the
format chosen by the publisher.
Thus,
through
the
Competition
Authority’s
intervention, more precise boundaries for the use of
press publications were established, aimed at ensuring
a fair balance of rights between publishers and news
aggregators.
Subsequently, the Paris Court of Appeal upheld the
fairness of the Competition Authority’s decision. The
court affirmed the relevance of Google’s dominant
position and emphasized that while the publishers’
rights do not automatically create a right to
remuneration, they do require fair and balanced
negotiations. Google’s conduct was found to
undermine the "useful effect" of the publishers’ rights.
However, according to the publishers, Google failed to
comply with the measures prescribed by the
Competition Authority and confirmed by the Paris
Court of Appeal.
These allegations were substantiated in August 2021
following an investigation by the Competition Authority
initiated in response to the 2020 complaint. As a result,
the authority imposed a €500 million fine. Specifically,
it found that Google had not fulfilled its obligation to
negotiate in good faith. The company had effectively
International Journal of Law And Criminology
22
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc
International Journal of Law And Criminology (ISSN: 2771-2214)
refused to clearly define the press publisher’s right as
the legal basis for the license, instead attempting to
impose global negotiations unrelated to Article 15 of
Directive 2019/790.
Furthermore, Google sought to exclude or limit the
scope of the right by excluding publishers who reused
content, those without a certificate of political and
general information (PGI), and by narrowly interpreting
revenues arising from Article 15 of the Directive.
Notably, in defining the boundaries of press publication
use, the Competition Authority also took into account
the indirect revenue generated through the
attractiveness of Google’s search engine.
This legal dispute was resolved in 2022. Google agreed
to the following commitments:
1. Google pledged not to restrict negotiations with
publishers holding a PGI (Political and General
Information) certificate, and not to limit the rights of
press agencies to content integrated into third-party
publications.
2. Google committed to negotiating in good faith,
which includes explicitly referencing Article 15 of
Directive (EU) 2019/790 during negotiations and
recognizing the newly granted right as a valid basis for
licensing and remuneration.
3. Google agreed to provide relevant information
necessary for determining the amount of remuneration
owed to press publishers. Notably, this process is to be
overseen by an independent monitoring trustee. The
purpose of this arrangement is to strike a balance
between Google's legitimate interest in protecting its
commercial secrets and the publishers' direct or
indirect need for access to information essential to
evaluating their compensation.
4. Google will make an offer regarding remuneration,
and if an agreement cannot be reached, the amount
may be determined by arbitral proceedings. This
process will also be supervised by an independent
administrator, tasked with resolving any disputes.
Interestingly, Google is obligated to comply with the
decisions of the arbitration administrator, although this
obligation does not necessarily extend to the press
publishers.
A key aspect of these commitments lies in the inclusion
of a third, neutral party to ensure fairness in the
negotiation process.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the establishment of limits on the
exercise of exclusive rights is rooted in the need to
avoid conflicts of interest. Achieving a proper balance
of interests requires the definition of specific methods
for using the results of intellectual activity, which
together constitute the content of the relevant
subjective right. It is important to emphasize that,
when determining the limits of exclusive rights, the
decisive factor is not the goals pursued by the right
holder, but rather the characteristics of the protected
object and the goals pursued by the legislature in
granting legal protection.
This conclusion stems from the understanding that the
primary function of exclusive rights to the results of
intellectual activity
—
including press publications
—
is to
support
the
economic,
social,
and
cultural
development of society.
REFERENCES
Belyatskin S.A. Novoye avtorskoye pravo v yego
osnovnix prinsipax. Spb, 1912. S. 67.
Buzova N.V. Ogranicheniya avtorskogo prava i smejnix
prav: problemi sitirovaniya // Jurnal Suda po
intellektualnim pravam. 2019. № 23. S. 46
-55.
Matveyev A.G. Sistema avtorskix prav. M.: Yurlitinform,
2017. S. 203.
Gribanov V.P. Osushestvleniye i zashita grajdanskix
prav. M., 2001. S. 22.
Vorojevich A.S. Granitsi i predeli osushestvleniya
avtorskix i smejnix prav: dis. …dra. Yurid. Nauk. M.,
2021.S. 15.
Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and
related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending
Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC. // Official Journal
of the European Union. L 130/92. 17.5.2019.
Sravneniye
zakonodatelstva
raznix
stran,
reguliruyushego
svobodu
panorami
URL:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:F
r eedom_of_panorama
Decision 20-Mc-01 Of 9 April 2020 On Requests For
Interim Measures By The Syndicat Des Éditeurs De La
Presse Magazine, The Alliance De La Presse
D’information Générale And Others And Agen
ce
France-Presse, Autorité De La Concurrence [Standing
Committee].
Buzova N.V. Izdateli pressi i novoye smejnoye pravo vo
Fransii // Jurnal Suda po intellektualnim pravam. № 3
(29). 2020 g. S. 91
Decision 22-D-13 Of 21 June 2022 Regarding Practices
Implemented In The Press Sector, Autorité De La
Concurrence [Standing Committee]
