# C_2016200EN.01001201.xml

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 29 March 2016 — Biedrība ‘Autortiesību un komunicēšanās konsultāciju aģentūra/Latvijas Autoru apvienība’ v Konkurences padome

(Case C-177/16)

(2016/C 200/18)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant at first instance: Biedrība ‘Autortiesību un komunicēšanās konsultāciju aģentūra/Latvijas Autoru apvienība’

Applicant at first instance:

Defendant at first instance: Konkurences padome

Defendant at first instance:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is subparagraph (a) of [the second paragraph] of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union applicable to a dispute concerning the rates laid down by a national copyright management organisation if that entity also collects remuneration in respect of works of foreign authors and the rates laid down by it may be a deterrent to the use of those works in the Member State in question? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is subparagraph (a) of [the second paragraph] of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union applicable to a dispute concerning the rates laid down by a national copyright management organisation if that entity also collects remuneration in respect of works of foreign authors and the rates laid down by it may be a deterrent to the use of those works in the Member State in question?

| 2. | For the purpose of defining the concept of unfair prices used in subparagraph (a) of [the second paragraph] of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in the context of the management of copyright and related rights, is it appropriate and sufficient — and in which cases — to draw a comparison between the prices (rates) in the market in question and the prices (rates) in neighbouring markets? |
| --- | --- |

2.

For the purpose of defining the concept of unfair prices used in subparagraph (a) of [the second paragraph] of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in the context of the management of copyright and related rights, is it appropriate and sufficient — and in which cases — to draw a comparison between the prices (rates) in the market in question and the prices (rates) in neighbouring markets?

| 3. | For the purpose of defining the concept of unfair prices used in subparagraph (a) of [the second paragraph] of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in the context of the management of copyright and related rights, is it appropriate and sufficient to use the purchasing power parity index based on gross domestic product? |
| --- | --- |

3.

For the purpose of defining the concept of unfair prices used in subparagraph (a) of [the second paragraph] of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in the context of the management of copyright and related rights, is it appropriate and sufficient to use the purchasing power parity index based on gross domestic product?

| 4. | Must the comparison of rates be made for each separate segment thereof or in relation to the average level of the rates? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Must the comparison of rates be made for each separate segment thereof or in relation to the average level of the rates?

| 5. | When must it be considered that the difference in the rates examined in connection with the concept of unfair prices used in subparagraph (a) of [the second paragraph] of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is appreciable, with the result that it is incumbent upon the economic operator enjoying a dominant position to demonstrate that its rates are fair? |
| --- | --- |

5.

When must it be considered that the difference in the rates examined in connection with the concept of unfair prices used in subparagraph (a) of [the second paragraph] of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is appreciable, with the result that it is incumbent upon the economic operator enjoying a dominant position to demonstrate that its rates are fair?

| 6. | What information can reasonably be expected from an economic operator to prove the fair nature of the rates for works covered by copyright, within the scope of subparagraph (a) of [the second paragraph] of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, if the cost of those works cannot be determined in the same way as that of products of a material nature? Is it solely a question of the cost of administering the copyright management organisation? |
| --- | --- |

6.

What information can reasonably be expected from an economic operator to prove the fair nature of the rates for works covered by copyright, within the scope of subparagraph (a) of [the second paragraph] of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, if the cost of those works cannot be determined in the same way as that of products of a material nature? Is it solely a question of the cost of administering the copyright management organisation?

| 7. | In the event of infringement of competition law, is it appropriate to exclude from the business turnover of a copyright management organisation, for the purposes of determining a fine, the remuneration paid to authors by that economic operator? |
| --- | --- |

7.

In the event of infringement of competition law, is it appropriate to exclude from the business turnover of a copyright management organisation, for the purposes of determining a fine, the remuneration paid to authors by that economic operator?

---