# C_2014175EN.01000701.xml

| 10.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — ACI Adam BV and Others v Stichting de Thuiskopie, Stichting Onderhandelingen Thuiskopie vergoeding

(Case C-435/12) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Copyright and related rights - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 5(2)(b) and (5) - Reproduction right - Exceptions and limitations - Reproduction for private use - Lawful nature of the origin of the copy - Directive 2004/48/EC - Scope))

2014/C 175/08

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: ACI Adam BV, Alpha International BV, AVC Nederland BV, B.A.S. Computers & Componenten BV, Despec BV, Dexxon Data Media and Storage BV, Fuji Magnetics Nederland, Imation Europe BV, Maxell Benelux BV, Philips Consumer Electronics BV, Sony Benelux BV, Verbatim GmbH

Applicants:

Defendants: Stichting de Thuiskopie, Stichting Onderhandelingen Thuiskopie vergoeding

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands — Interpretation of Article 5(2) and (5) 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 (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10) and of Article 14 of Directive 2004/48/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45) — Reproduction right — Exceptions and limitations — Enforcement of intellectual property rights — Legal costs — Scope

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1) | EU law, in particular 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, read in conjunction with paragraph 5 of that article, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not distinguish the situation in which the source from which a reproduction for private use is made is lawful from that in which that source is unlawful. |
| --- | --- |

1)

EU law, in particular 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, read in conjunction with paragraph 5 of that article, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not distinguish the situation in which the source from which a reproduction for private use is made is lawful from that in which that source is unlawful.

| 2) | Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as not applying to proceedings, such as those in the main proceedings, in which those liable for payment of the fair compensation bring an action before the referring court for a ruling against the body responsible for collecting that remuneration and distributing it to copyright holders, which defends that action. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as not applying to proceedings, such as those in the main proceedings, in which those liable for payment of the fair compensation bring an action before the referring court for a ruling against the body responsible for collecting that remuneration and distributing it to copyright holders, which defends that action.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 22. 12. 2012.

1

---