- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-325/14: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — SBS Belgium NV v Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers (SABAM) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/29/EC — Article 3(1) — Communication to the public — Definition of ‘communication’ and ‘public’ — Distribution of television programmes — Process known as ‘direct injection’)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014CA0325
62014CA0325
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
18.1.2016
Official Journal of the European Union
C 16/11
(Case C-325/14) (<span class="super">1</span>)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 3(1) - Communication to the public - Definition of ‘communication’ and ‘public’ - Distribution of television programmes - Process known as ‘direct injection’))
(2016/C 016/12)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: SBS Belgium NV
Defendant: Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers (SABAM)
Operative part of the judgment
Article 3(1) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that a broadcasting organisation does not carry out an act of communication to the public, within the meaning of that provision, when it transmits its programme-carrying signals exclusively to signal distributors without those signals being accessible to the public during, and as a result of that transmission, those distributors then sending those signals to their respective subscribers so that they may watch those programmes, unless the intervention of the distributors in question is just a technical means, which it is for the national court to ascertain.
Language of the case: Dutch.
* * *
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.