|Home » Industry Watch
TPB: Swedish Courts Do It Again
Who says the fix isn't still in?
STOCKHOLM (Rixstep) -- Sweden's high court Svea hovrätt today dropped another bomb: they don't plan on seeking guidance from the European Union either.
The twists and turns in this infected legal process have already gone round the bend once before: tainted magistrate Tomas Norström also refused to request a preliminary ruling from the European court.
And the reason seems obvious: The Pirate Bay are actually legally exempt from prosecution by virtue of the principle of mere conduit and the form of copyright practiced in Hollywood is not officially recognised in the European Union, effectively making all plaintiff motions moot.
But such trivial objections didn't stop the Hollywood MAFIAA and their friends in Stockholm last time and they're evidently not going to stop them this time either when the case again opens in the higher court in November.
Rather it seems very obvious the Swedish government feel obligated to give Hollywood the verdict they demand - and legalities and matters of national sovereignty be damned.
Following is the translation of the official announcement from the Swedish higher court.
Svea hovrätt decide to not request preliminary ruling from European court for trial of The Pirate Bay (B 4041-09)
[2009-10-09] Svea hovrätt
Two of the defendants in the scheduled hearing in the case of The Pirate Bay have petitioned the court to obtain a preliminary ruling from the European Court concerning interpretation of community law.
Two of the defendants have also petitioned the court to reschedule the trial. The court shall reject the petition for a preliminary ruling and further insist there is no obstacle to holding the trial in November as planned. The court shall also rule in other matters.
The court state in their motivation that amongst other things the case in question lacks any issues of community law which make it necessary to request a preliminary ruling in order to judge the case.
One of the defendants has petitioned the court to have the case tried at a site other than Stockholm. The court find there is no justification and therefore deny the request. Two of the defendants have petitioned the court to reschedule the trial because of personal conflicts. The court find the reasons cited to not be sufficient (laga förfall) for not being able to attend the hearings.
This decision is taken by high court judge Kristina Boutz and counsels Ingemar Persson and Ulrika Ihrfelt. The decision is unanimous. It cannot be separately appealed.
Sveriges Domstolar: B 4041-09