Order — ECLI:EU:C:2015:222
Date: 2015-04-14

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 26 February 2015 1. EU law — Interpretation — Texts in several languages — Uniform interpretation — Differences between the various language versions — Context and purpose of the legislation in question as a basis for reference (European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/84, Art. 1(4)) 2. Approximation of laws — Copyright and related rights — Directive 2001/84 — Resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art — Person liable for the resale royalty — Possibility of derogating, by agreement, from the national rule whereby the resale royalty is payable by the seller — Conditions (European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/84, Recitals 13 and 15 and Art. 1(4)) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 25, 26) 2. Article 1(4) of Directive 2001/84 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art must be interpreted as not precluding the person by whom the resale royalty is payable, designated as such by national law, whether that is the seller or an art market professional involved in the transaction, from agreeing with any other person, including the buyer, that that other person will definitively bear, in whole or in part, the cost of the royalty, provided that a contractual arrangement of that kind does not affect the obligations and liability which the person by whom the royalty is payable has towards the author. For the purpose of achieving the objective pursued by Directive 2001/84, which seeks, inter alia, to bring to an end distortions of competition on the art market, as that objective is circumscribed by recitals 13 and 15 to that directive, it is necessary that provision be made as to the person liable for payment of the royalty vis-à-vis the author and as to the rules for establishing the amount of the royalty. However, such provision is not necessary with regard to the question as to who, definitively, will bear the cost of the royalty. Admittedly, it cannot be excluded at the outset that the last-mentioned question may to some extent have a distorting effect on the functioning of the internal market. However, such an effect is, in any event, only indirect, since it arises as a result of contractual arrangements that are independent of the payment of the royalty to the author, for which the person by whom the royalty is payable remains liable. (see paras 28-31, 33, operative part)