# C_2015228EN.01000401.xml

| 13.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Benelux Gerechtshof lodged on 13 April 2015 — Montis Design BV v Goossens Meubelen BV

(Case C-169/15)

(2015/C 228/04)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Benelux Gerechtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Montis Design BV

Applicant:

Defendant: Goossens Meubelen BV

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1) | Is the term of protection referred to in Article 10, in conjunction with Article 13(1), of Directive 93/98/EEC (the Term of Protection Directive) (1) applicable to rights of copyright that were originally protected by national copyright law but which lapsed before 1 July 1995 on the ground that a formal condition had not been satisfied (in due time), more specifically because a maintenance declaration, as referred to in Article 21(3) of the Uniform Benelux Law on Designs and Models (old version), had not been filed (in due time)? |
| --- | --- |

1)

Is the term of protection referred to in Article 10, in conjunction with Article 13(1), of Directive 93/98/EEC (the Term of Protection Directive) (1) applicable to rights of copyright that were originally protected by national copyright law but which lapsed before 1 July 1995 on the ground that a formal condition had not been satisfied (in due time), more specifically because a maintenance declaration, as referred to in Article 21(3) of the Uniform Benelux Law on Designs and Models (old version), had not been filed (in due time)?

1

| 2) | If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:
  Must the Term of Protection Directive be construed as precluding a rule of national legislation under which the copyright in a work of applied art that lapsed before 1 July 1995 on the ground that a formal condition had not been satisfied is deemed to have lapsed permanently? |
| --- | --- |

2)

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:

Must the Term of Protection Directive be construed as precluding a rule of national legislation under which the copyright in a work of applied art that lapsed before 1 July 1995 on the ground that a formal condition had not been satisfied is deemed to have lapsed permanently?

| 3) | If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative:
  If, under national legislation, the copyright in question is to be considered to revive or to be revived at a certain time, from what date does such revival occur? |
| --- | --- |

3)

If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative:

If, under national legislation, the copyright in question is to be considered to revive or to be revived at a certain time, from what date does such revival occur?

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonising the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights (OJ 1993 L 290, p. 9), now Directive 2006/116/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the terms of protection of copyright and certain related rights (codified version) (OJ 2006 L 372, p. 12).

1

---