Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2015:315
Date: 2015-05-13
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Subject matter: Intellectual, industrial and commercial property;Approximation of laws
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 13 May 2015 1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Questions bearing no relation to the subject matter of the case in the main proceedings — Presumption of relevance (Art. 267 TFEU) 2. Approximation of laws — Copyright and related rights — Directive 2001/29 — Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society — Distribution to the public — Concept — Offer for sale or advertisement of works protected by copyright not leading to the purchase of the original or copies — Included — Right of the holder of the exclusive distribution right to oppose such practices (European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29, recitals 9 to 11 and Art. 4(1)) 1. See the text of the decision. (see para. 17) 2. Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as allowing holder of an exclusive right to distribute a protected work to prevent an offer for sale or a targeted advertisement of the original or a copy of that work, even if it is not established that that advertisement gave rise to the purchase of the protected work by an EU buyer, in so far as that advertisement invites consumers of the Member State in which that work is protected by copyright to purchase it. There may be an infringement of the exclusive distribution right, under Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29, where a trader, who does not hold the copyright, sells protected works or copies thereof and addresses an advertisement, through its website, by direct mail or in the press, to consumers located in the territory of the Member State in which those works are protected in order to invite them to purchase it. That interpretation is consistent with the objectives of that directive, as set out in recitals 9 to 11 in the preamble thereto, which state that the harmonisation of copyright must take as a basis a high level of protection, that authors have to receive an appropriate reward for the use of their work and that the system for the protection of copyright must be rigorous and effective. (see paras 31, 34, 35, operative part)