How the observatory works.

94 curated decisions and acts. This is not a full case database. We select the decisions that set or shift precedent: rulings of apex and appellate courts, the first decision on a question in a jurisdiction, decisions that break with the trend, and the office decisions and legislation practitioners rely on. Each links to the official text where one is available, and to a reputable summary.

59 policy papers. Reports, resolutions, bills and consultations from policymakers; peer-reviewed articles, books and studies by recognised scholars; and resolutions of professional bodies. We link only to official or openly available copies.

3,638 EU judgments.Every judgment of the Court of Justice and the General Court since 2010 tagged with an intellectual property subject in the EU Publications Office’s official data (CELLAR). Labels come from each judgment’s official keywords, not from our reading. EUR-Lex data is reused under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU.

Each decision or paper is coded against one question, on a five-point scale between the question’s two poles. Only the core holding or main recommendation counts, not side remarks; a source that discusses a question without taking a position is recorded but not placed. A judgment with separate holdings on two questions (GEMA v. OpenAI on the model and on outputs) is coded on each.

Descriptive work, such as comparative surveys and mapping studies, is shown as evidence, not as a position: it is listed on its question but not placed on the scale, and not counted as backing a proposal.

For AI training, for example: −2 permission is needed; −1 training is allowed only with payment, or licensing is the main route; 0 allowed with limits (an opt-out, case by case); +1 generally allowed, with limits only at the edges; +2 freely allowed. The other questions follow the same pattern between their own poles. Where a source’s lean within a middle position is not clear from its text, it stays at 0.

Every record has its own page with a stable link, the position on each question it answers and why it sits there, and a log of later changes to the record. Where the reasons for a position between the poles are not yet written up, the page says so.

Where the link between a decision and a principle is arguable, it is marked with a question mark and not counted.

The observatory separates what the law is from what people propose it should be. Court decisions, legislation and office practice form the law layer; papers from policymakers, academia and professional bodies form the proposals layer. In the overview the law sits above each line and proposals below it, and each layer has its own verdict.

The law is read jurisdiction by jurisdiction. In each jurisdiction only the most authoritative good-law source that takes a position counts: legislation and apex courts, then appellate courts, then first instance, then office practice, newest first on ties. Ten lower-court rulings in one country therefore do not outweigh one apex ruling elsewhere. Law marks are drawn larger for higher authority, and as rings for office decisions and guidance. A refusal to hear an appeal, such as a denial of certiorari, is recorded as a development but not as a position, since it decides nothing on the merits.

Each layer gets a verdict: Too few under three sources (no claim either way); Settled when at least three quarters sit on one side or in the middle; Split when at least a quarter sit on each side; otherwise Leaning. Within each question, every source is still shown as its own mark; nothing is averaged.

The open dataset (CSV, JSON) has one row per decision, act or paper, with these fields:

id

Stable identifier; the record's page is /pro/decisions/{id}

title

Short name of the decision, act or paper

kind

court, office, act or policy (non-binding proposals, studies and reports)

body

Court, office, legislature or authors

jurisdiction

Jurisdiction it belongs to

region

Region used for grouping

date

ISO date, or year-month when the day is uncertain

citation

Citation to look it up by

issue

The question it is coded on

answer

yes, partly, no, or none (takes no position)

position

Place on the question's five-point scale, from -1 (left pole) to 1 (right pole); empty when it takes no position

level

legislation, apex, appellate, first-instance, office, guidance or proposal

status

current, ongoing, narrowed or overruled

source_group

For papers: policymaker, academia or professional

primary_url

Official text, where one is linked

source_url

Secondary summary the entry was checked against

reviewed

Whether a lawyer has reviewed the record against the primary source