18.12.2010

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/5

(Case C-467/08) (<span class="super">1</span>)

(Approximation of laws - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Reproduction right - Exceptions and limitations - Private copying exception - Definition of ‘fair compensation’ - Uniform interpretation - Implementation by the Member States - Criteria - Limits - Private copying levy applied to digital reproduction equipment, devices and media)

2010/C 346/08

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: PADAWAN SL

Defendant: Sociedad General de Autores y Editores (SGAE)

In the presence of: Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA), Asociación de Artistas Intérpretes o Ejecutantes — Sociedad de Gestión de España (AIE), Asociación de Gestión de Derechos Intelectuales (AGEDI), Centro Español de Derechos Reprográficos (CEDRO),

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Interpretation of Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2009 L 167, p. 10) — Reproduction right — Exceptions and limitations — Fair compensation — Private copying levy system applied to digital equipment, devices and media

Operative part of the judgment

1.The concept of ‘fair compensation’, within the meaning of Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, is an autonomous concept of European Union law which must be interpreted uniformly in all the Member States that have introduced a private copying exception, irrespective of the power conferred on the Member States to determine, within the limits imposed by European Union law in particular by that directive, the form, detailed arrangements for financing and collection, and the level of that fair compensation.

2.Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as meaning that the ‘fair balance’ between the persons concerned means that fair compensation must be calculated on the basis of the criterion of the harm caused to authors of protected works by the introduction of the private copying exception. It is consistent with the requirements of that ‘fair balance’ to provide that persons who have digital reproduction equipment, devices and media and who on that basis, in law or in fact, make that equipment available to private users or provide them with copying services are the persons liable to finance the fair compensation, inasmuch as they are able to pass on to private users the actual burden of financing it.

3.Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as meaning that a link is necessary between the application of the levy intended to finance fair compensation with respect to digital reproduction equipment, devices and media and the deemed use of them for the purposes of private copying. Consequently, the indiscriminate application of the private copying levy, in particular with respect to digital reproduction equipment, devices and media not made available to private users and clearly reserved for uses other than private copying, is incompatible with Directive 2001/29.

* Language of the case: Spanish.

(1) OJ C 19, 24.1.2009, p. 12.