# C_2019206EN.01003301.xml

| 17.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 206/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 206/33

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 29 March 2019 — Recorded Artists Actors Performers Ltd v Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Ltd, Minister for Jobs Enterprise and Innovation, Ireland, Attorney General

(Case C-265/19)

(2019/C 206/38)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Recorded Artists Actors Performers Ltd

Defendants: Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Ltd, Minister for Jobs Enterprise and Innovation, Ireland, Attorney General

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the obligation on a national court to interpret the Directive 2006/115 (1) on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (‘the Directive’) in the light of the purpose and objective of the Rome Convention (2) and/or the WPPT (3) confined to concepts which are expressly referenced in the Directive, or does it, alternatively, extend to concepts which are only to be found in the two international agreements? In particular, to what extent must Article 8 of the Directive be interpreted in light of the requirement for ‘national treatment’ under Article 4 of the WPPT? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the obligation on a national court to interpret the Directive 2006/115 (1) on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (‘the Directive’) in the light of the purpose and objective of the Rome Convention (2) and/or the WPPT (3) confined to concepts which are expressly referenced in the Directive, or does it, alternatively, extend to concepts which are only to be found in the two international agreements? In particular, to what extent must Article 8 of the Directive be interpreted in light of the requirement for ‘national treatment’ under Article 4 of the WPPT?

| 2. | Does a Member State have discretion to prescribe criteria for determining which performers qualify as ‘relevant performers’ under Article 8 of the Directive? In particular, can a Member State restrict the right to share in equitable remuneration to circumstances where either (i) the performance takes place in a European Economic Area (‘EEA’) country, or (ii) the performers are domiciles or residents of an EEA country? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does a Member State have discretion to prescribe criteria for determining which performers qualify as ‘relevant performers’ under Article 8 of the Directive? In particular, can a Member State restrict the right to share in equitable remuneration to circumstances where either (i) the performance takes place in a European Economic Area (‘EEA’) country, or (ii) the performers are domiciles or residents of an EEA country?

| 3. | What discretion does a Member State enjoy in responding to a reservation entered by another Contracting Party under article 15(3) of the WPPT? In particular, is the Member State required to mirror precisely the terms of the reservation entered by the other Contracting Party? Is a Contracting Party required not to apply the 30-day rule in Article 5 of the Rome Convention to the extent that it may result in a producer from the reserving party receiving remuneration under Article 15(1) but not the performers of the same recording receiving remuneration? Alternatively, is the responding party entitled to provide rights to the nationals of the reserving party on a more generous basis than the reserving party has done, i.e. can the responding party provide rights which are not reciprocated by the reserving party? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What discretion does a Member State enjoy in responding to a reservation entered by another Contracting Party under article 15(3) of the WPPT? In particular, is the Member State required to mirror precisely the terms of the reservation entered by the other Contracting Party? Is a Contracting Party required not to apply the 30-day rule in Article 5 of the Rome Convention to the extent that it may result in a producer from the reserving party receiving remuneration under Article 15(1) but not the performers of the same recording receiving remuneration? Alternatively, is the responding party entitled to provide rights to the nationals of the reserving party on a more generous basis than the reserving party has done, i.e. can the responding party provide rights which are not reciprocated by the reserving party?

| 4. | Is it permissible in any circumstances to confine the right to equitable remuneration to the producers of a sound recording, i.e. to deny the right to the performers whose performances have been fixed in that sound recording? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is it permissible in any circumstances to confine the right to equitable remuneration to the producers of a sound recording, i.e. to deny the right to the performers whose performances have been fixed in that sound recording?

---

(1)  OJ 2006, L 376, p. 28.

(2)  International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations (1961).

(3)  WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty 1996.

---