Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2016:73
Date: 2016-02-04
Language of the case: German
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

summary’, and pp. 66 to 81 of the synoptic table. 50 See, to that effect, the judgments in Medipac-Kazantzidis (C‑6/05, EU:C:2007:337, paragraph 34), and Enterprise Focused Solutions (C‑278/14, EU:C:2015:228, paragraph 17). 51 However, in my view, Article 14 only provides for compensation for costs linked to proving the infringement at issue in the case concerned. General costs of detection and monitoring of the market, which arise early on and are not specific to a given case, may however, in practice, already be included in the amount of the normal fee for licensed production (see, to that effect, the Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen in Geistbeck, C‑509/10, EU:C:2012:187, points 64 and 72 to 74). It is, in my view, from that perspective that recital 26 of Directive 2004/48 states that a lump-sum assessment of damages on the basis of the notional fee makes it possible to take into account the costs of research and identification incurred by the rightholder. 52 Judgments in Realchemie Nederland (C‑406/09, EU:C:2011:668, paragraph 48) and Diageo Brands (C‑681/13, EU:C:2015:471, paragraph 77). 53 C‑406/09, EU:C:2011:209, point 87.