# C_2008064EN.01002002.xml

| 8.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/20

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 14 December 2007 — LSG-Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung von Leistungsschutzrechten GmbH v Tele2 Telecommunication GmbH

(Case C-557/07)

(2008/C 64/30)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LSG-Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung von Leistungsschutzrechten GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Tele2 Telecommunication GmbH

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the term ‘intermediary’ in Article 5(1)(a) and Article 8(3) 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 (1) to be interpreted as including an access provider who merely provides a user with access to the network by allocating him a dynamic IP address but does not himself provide him with any services such as e-mail, FTP or file-sharing services and does not exercise any control, either in law or in fact, over the services which the user makes use of? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the term ‘intermediary’ in Article 5(1)(a) and Article 8(3) 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 (1) to be interpreted as including an access provider who merely provides a user with access to the network by allocating him a dynamic IP address but does not himself provide him with any services such as e-mail, FTP or file-sharing services and does not exercise any control, either in law or in fact, over the services which the user makes use of?

1

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative:
  Is Article 8(3) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (2), having regard to Article 6 and Article 15 of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector, to be interpreted (restrictively) as not permitting the disclosure of personal traffic data to private third parties for the purpose of civil proceedings for alleged infringements of exclusive rights protected by copyright (rights of exploitation and use)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative:

Is Article 8(3) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (2), having regard to Article 6 and Article 15 of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector, to be interpreted (restrictively) as not permitting the disclosure of personal traffic data to private third parties for the purpose of civil proceedings for alleged infringements of exclusive rights protected by copyright (rights of exploitation and use)?

2

---

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

1

(2)  OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45.

2

---