# C_2010134EN.01002702.xml

| 22.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/27

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte di Appello di Torino (Italy), lodged on 15 March 2010 — SCF Consorzio Fonografici v Marco Del Corso

(Case C-135/10)

2010/C 134/42

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Corte di Appello di Torino

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: SCF Consorzio Fonografici

Appellant:

Respondent: Marco Del Corso

Respondent:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Are the Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations of 26 October 1961, the TRIPs Agreement (Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) and the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organisation) Treaty on Performances and Phonograms (WPPT) directly applicable within the Community legal order? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are the Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations of 26 October 1961, the TRIPs Agreement (Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) and the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organisation) Treaty on Performances and Phonograms (WPPT) directly applicable within the Community legal order?

| 2. | Are the abovementioned sources of uniform international law also directly effective within the context of private-law relationships? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are the abovementioned sources of uniform international law also directly effective within the context of private-law relationships?

| 3. | Do the concepts of ‘communication to the public’ contained in the abovementioned treaty-law texts mirror the Community concepts contained in Directives 92/100/EEC (1) and 2001/29/EC (2) and, if not, which source should take precedence? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Do the concepts of ‘communication to the public’ contained in the abovementioned treaty-law texts mirror the Community concepts contained in Directives 92/100/EEC (1) and 2001/29/EC (2) and, if not, which source should take precedence?

1

2

| 4. | Does the broadcasting, free of charge, of phonograms within private dental practices engaged in professional economic activity, for the benefit of patients of those practices and enjoyed by them without any active choice on their part, constitute ‘communication to the public’ or ‘making available to the public’ for the purposes of the application of Article 3(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the broadcasting, free of charge, of phonograms within private dental practices engaged in professional economic activity, for the benefit of patients of those practices and enjoyed by them without any active choice on their part, constitute ‘communication to the public’ or ‘making available to the public’ for the purposes of the application of Article 3(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC?

| 5. | Does such an act of transmission entitle the phonogram producers to the payment of remuneration? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does such an act of transmission entitle the phonogram producers to the payment of remuneration?

---

(1)  OJ 1992 L 346, p. 61.

1

(2)  OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.

2

---