THE HAGUE - Master license holder Cyberluck is appealing to the Supreme Court in the Netherlands. It wants to get two rulings on appeal about sublicenses off the table. In those rulings, the judges ruled that Cyberluck is treading on thin ice with the self-issuing of so-called sublicenses and does not maintain adequate supervision.
According to Cyberluck, the formation of law and legal unity in Curaçao will benefit if the Supreme Court makes a directive ruling on the (il)legality of sublicensing by the master licensees in Curaçao and the (i)legality of the publications.
Knipslekrant
The case of the gambling sector was and is directed against Nardy Cramm of the Knipselkrant (newspaper clippings). Cramm still had to rectify in the first instance because the statement that the issuing of sublicenses by Cyberluck is illegal would be unlawful. The court even ruled that the gambling law does not contain a provision that prohibits the licensee from outsourcing part of the operation of its license to third parties.
But the appeal judges argue that the Court of First Instance dealt only summarily with the legality of sub-licensing and that a full hearing on this point was not requested. That was not the subject of the dispute.
The fact that Cramm takes an activist position and that she wants to denounce abuses in Curaçao is clear to all readers, the judges said. She must therefore be given some room to exaggerate and provoke and her words should therefore not be weighed on a gold scale, according to the Court. Moreover, expressions that are offensive and hurtful, shocking or disturbing also deserve protection.
Grievances
In order to get the Supreme Court to quash the judgment on appeal and to refer it back to the Court in Willemstad, Cyberluck argues that the Court wrongly took into account Cramm's grievances. The procedure for submitting it would not have gone according to the rules.
According to Cyberluck, there is also no rule of law that qualifies the practice of sublicensing as illegal simply because it would be impossible in practice for a license holder to properly supervise the practice of the sublicensees. The Court's reasoning is said to be incomprehensible or insufficiently reasoned.
Likewise, according to Cyberluck, there would be no legal rule that qualifies the issuance of sublicenses as illegal. In addition, the company maintains that Cramm's statements are unlawful and are not supported by the facts.
According to Cyberluck, there would be no room for a weighing of interests as the Court does in its judgment.
The two cases will each be dealt with separately at the Supreme Court. The first on February 3, the second on February 24 next year.
