Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2026:383
Date: 2026-05-07
Language of the case: Czech

summary that the substance of the question 
referred is whether a national court is obliged, in proceedings conducted under 
Article 8(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC, to order the obliged entity, on application 
by the applicant, not only to provide the information set out in Article 8(2) of the 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 19 MARCH 2025 – CASE C-276/25 
 
12  
directive, in the sense of simple information (data), but also to impose on it the 
obligation to demonstrate the completeness and accuracy of that information, by 
producing the relevant documents to the applicant granted the right to information. 
42 For the avoidance of doubt, the Nejvyšší soud (Supreme Court) states that the 
question is directed at the interpretation of the (maximum) extent of the 
obligations under Article 8(a) and (2) of that directive, not at clarification of 
whether and to what extent a Member State is entitled to grant a right in its 
national law to a holder of an intellectual property right to obtain fuller 
(additional) information within the meaning of Article 8(3)(a) of the directive 
(judgment of the Court of Justice of 9 July 2020, Constantin Film Verleih GmbH 
v YouTube LLC and Google Inc., C-264/19, ECLI:EU:C:2020:542). The question 
referred is not directed at that issue. 
V. 
[…] 
43 […] [national proceedings]  
[…]