- 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-637/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea Hovrätt — Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 27 August 2019 — BY v CX
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019CN0637
62019CN0637
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
4.11.2019
Official Journal of the European Union
C 372/19
(Case C-637/19)
(2019/C 372/21)
Language of the case: Swedish
Referring court
Svea Hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: BY
Defendant: CX
Questions referred
1.Does the term ‘public’ in Articles 3(1) and 4(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) 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 have a uniform meaning?
2.If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, is a court to be regarded as falling within the scope of the term ‘public’ within the meaning of those provisions?
If question 1 is answered in the negative:
(a)in the event of communication of a protected work to a court, can that court fall within the scope of the term ‘public’?
(b)in the event of distribution of a protected work to a court, can that court fall within the scope of the term ‘public’?
4.Does the fact that national legislation lays down a general principle of access to public documents in accordance with which any person who makes a request can access procedural documents submitted to a court, except where they contain confidential information, affect the assessment of whether submission to a court of a protected work amounts to a ‘communication to the public’ or a ‘distribution to the public’?
(1) OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.