Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2017:144
Date: 2017-03-01
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Subject matter: Intellectual, industrial and commercial property;Approximation of laws
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling;Reference for a preliminary ruling - decision unnecessary
Origin: United Kingdom

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 1 March 2017 Approximation of laws — Copyright and related rights — Directive 2001/29 — Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society — Continued application of other legal provisions — Concept of ‘access to cable of broadcasting services’ — National legislation providing that copyright is not infringed in the case of the immediate retransmission by cable, including via the internet, in the area of initial broadcast, of works broadcast on television channels subject to public service obligations — Not included (European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29, Recital 60 and Arts 5 and 9) Article 9 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, and specifically the concept of ‘access to cable of broadcasting services’, must be interpreted as not covering, and not permitting, national legislation which provides that copyright is not infringed in the case of the immediate retransmission by cable, including, where relevant, via the internet, in the area of initial broadcast, of works broadcast on television channels subject to public service obligations. As regards Article 9 of Directive 2001/29, as the Advocate General noted at points 37 and 38 of his Opinion, it is apparent from that provision, read in the light of recital 60 of that directive, that Article 9 is intended to maintain the provisions applicable in areas other than that harmonised by the directive. Indeed, an interpretation of Article 9 of Directive 2001/29 to the effect that it permits a retransmission, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, without the consent of the authors, in cases other than those provided for in Article 5 of that directive, would run counter not only to the objective of Article 9, but also to the exhaustive nature of Article 5, and, consequently, would be detrimental to the achievement of the principal objective of that directive which is to establish a high level of protection of authors. It is irrelevant whether the protected works were initially broadcast on television channels subject to public service obligations. Indeed, there is no basis in Directive 2001/29 that would justify affording less protection to those channels’ content. (see paras 26-29, operative part)