Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2026:123
Date: 2026-02-26
Language of the case: German

Anonymised version 
Translation C-840/24 – 1 
Case C-840/24 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
10 December 2024 
Referring court: 
Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
21 November 2024 
Defendant and appellant on a point of law: 
Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort, legally registered association by 
State charter (VG Wort) 
Applicant and respondent on a point of law: 
TL 
  
Certified copy 
BUNDESGERICHTSHOF 
(Federal Court of Justice, Germany) 
ORDER 
I ZR 135/23 
of 
21 November 2024 
in the Case of 
Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort, […] Munich, 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 21. 11. 2024 – CASE C-840/24 
 
2  
Anonymised version 
Defendant, appellant in the appeal on a point of law and 
cross-respondent in the appeal on a point of law, 
[…] 
v 
TL 
Applicant, respondent in the appeal on a point of law and 
cross-appellant in the appeal on a point of law, 
[…] 
The Ist Civil Chamber (Zivilsenat) of the Federal Court of Justice ordered as 
follows [OMISSIS]: 
I. The proceedings are stayed. 
II. The following questions are referred to the Court of Justice of the European 
Union for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 5(2)(b) 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 (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10); of the first 
sentence of Article 6(1) of Directive 2006/115/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and 
lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of 
intellectual property (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 28); as well as of Article 11(4) and 
Article 12(4) of Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 26 February 2014 on collective management of copyright and 
related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for 
online use in the internal market (OJ 2014 L 84, p. 72): 
1. Is the fact that a provision of national law provides that a collecting 
society is to promote works of cultural importance and that, as 
consequence thereof, recipients who are not (or, in any event, not yet) 
part of the group of rightholders also benefit from that promotion 
compatible with Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC, with the first 
sentence of Article 6(1) of Directive 2006/115/EC, and with 
Article 11(4) and Article 12(4) of Directive 2014/26/EU? 
2. In the event that the provision of social, cultural or educational 
services under Article 12(4) of Directive 2014/26/EU is permitted only 
to rightholders: Does the permissibility of providing such services 
depend on the recipient of those services having a present right to 
remuneration, or is it sufficient to hold a present copyright or related 
right that is not currently remunerated? Is the permissibility of such 
VG WORT 
 
3 
Anonymised version 
services conditional upon the existence of a management agreement 
with the collecting society? 
Grounds: 
1 A. The applicant is the author of scientific works. In addition to his own claims, 
he is also asserting the assigned claims of the author OS (‘the assigner’), who 
mainly authors travel guides. 
2 The defendant is a legally registered society by State charter which brings together 
authors of written works and their publishers to facilitate the collective 
management of copyright. As a single collecting society in Germany, it manages 
the copyright entitlements entrusted to it under contract by the authors of written 
works and their publishers. 
3 On 29 December 1983 / 26 January 1984, the applicant entered into a 
management agreement (‘MA K’) with the defendant and the assigner did the 
same on 20 November /9 December 1994 (‘MA Z’). Both are members of the 
defendant. During the period at issue (1 January 2016 to 30 September 2019), the 
applicant and the assigner registered various works with the defendant and each of 
them received distributions from the defendant’s revenues under the category of 
‘Reproduction of existing text’ (‘Vervielfältigung von stehendem Text’). 
4 Both management agreements contain a provision stipulating that the accounting 
and distribution of the share of the defendant’s revenues are to be allocated to the 
applicant and the assigner is to be determined in accordance with the defendant’s 
articles of association and distribution plan (section 6 of MA K; section 4(1) of 
MA Z). In that respect, the wording contained in both management agreements 
stipulates that those provisions, as amended from time to time, also form part of 
the agreement (first sentence of section 3 of MA K; first sentence of section 5 of 
MA Z). The wording contained in the management agreements also stipulates that 
any amendments to the management agreements used by the defendant are to form 
part of the agreement (second sentence of section 3 of MA K); in that respect, the 
management agreement entered into with the assigner provides for an approval 
requirement, whereby the approval is deemed to have been given under certain 
conditions (second and third sentences of section 5 of MA Z). 
5 The defendant’s articles of association, in the versions applicable during the 
period at issue, also governed the funding distributions made to the 
Förderungsfonds Wissenschaft der VG Wort GmbH (science promotion fund of 
VG Wort GmbH, ‘FFW’), an independent GmbH (private limited liability 
company) whose sole member is the defendant. 
6 Article 2(1) of the articles of association of FFW, of 30 November 2015, provides 
that the object of the company is to promote science and research. According to 
Article 9 of the articles of association of FFW, that promotion is to be achieved 
through the award of printing grants for the publication of scientific works and 
specialist works, the award of grants for research activities that can be expected to 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 21. 11. 2024 – CASE C-840/24 
 
4  
Anonymised version 
give rise to scientific works or specialist works, as well as through the award of 
grants to support other measures aimed at promoting scientific and specialist 
literature. The grants can be applied for by authors and publishers who have 
entered into a management agreement with the defendant. 
7 The applicant, acting on the basis of its own rights and those of the assigner, is 
objecting to the fact that the defendant, during the period from 1 January 2016 
until 30 September 2019, allocated a share of its revenues to the FFW, thereby 
reducing the applicant’s and the assigner’s share of those revenues. 
8 The applicant is seeking – in so far as relevant to the request for a preliminary 
ruling – a declaration: 
that the defendant was not, and is not, entitled to reduce the distributions of 
the shares in the revenues arising from the management of the statutory 
rights to remuneration attributable to the works of the applicant, as well as to 
the specialist and non-fiction books of the [assigner] […], which are 
attributable to the management period running from 1 January 2016 until 
30 September 2019, by making payments out of those revenues for the 
following purposes: […] 
Contributions to the FFW. 
9 In addition, the applicant has requested disclosure of the amount of the 
contributions paid to the FFW. 
10 The Landgericht (Regional Court) granted the application for a declaration and the 
application for disclosure in favour of the assigner in full but granted the 
application for disclosure in favour of the applicant only in part. The 
Berufungsgericht (Court of Appeal) upheld the judgment in favour of the assigner 
and rejected the claim in full with respect to the applicant. 
11 By its appeal on a point of law (Revision), which was authorised by the Court of 
Appeal, and which the applicant is seeking to have dismissed, the defendant is 
continuing to pursue its application for complete rejection of the action. By its 
cross-appeal on points of law (Anschlussrevision), which the defendant is seeking 
to have dismissed, the applicant is continuing to pursue his claims. 
12 B. The success of the appeal on a point of law depends on the interpretation of 
Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC; the first sentence of Article 6(1) of 
Directive 2006/115/EC; and of Article 11(4) and Article 12(4) of Directive 
2014/26/EU. Hence, before a decision is made on the appeal on a point of law, the 
proceedings are to be stayed and a preliminary ruling is to be obtained from the 
Court of Justice of the European Union in accordance with the first paragraph, 
point (b), and the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU. 
VG WORT 
 
5 
Anonymised version 
13 I. The Court of Appeal considered the action to be admissible and well-founded 
with respect to the claims of the assigner, and admissible but unfounded with 
respect to the claims of the applicant. In that regard, it stated that: 
14 The claims to a declaration and disclosure being asserted on the basis of the 
assigned right of the assigner were well-founded because the provisions set out in 
the distribution plans for the years 2015 to 2018 regarding distributions to the 
FFW constituted standard business terms, the provisions of which contravened 
essential principles of the Gesetz über die Wahrnehmung von Urheberrechten und 
verwandten Schutzrechten durch Verwertungsgesellschaften (Law on the 
Management of Copyright and Related Rights by Collecting Societies, ‘VGG’) 
and were, as such, invalid since, according to those provisions, non-entitled 
persons participated in the distributions. Since the assigner’s distributions had 
been reduced as a result of the distributions made to the FFW, his claims for a 
declaration and disclosure were well-founded. With respect to the applicant, 
however, it found that it had not been demonstrated that the distributions had been 
reduced and hence the rejection of the action based on the applicant’s own claims 
had to be upheld. 
15 II. The defendant’s appeal on a point of law challenging that judgment will be 
successful if the Court of Appeal erroneously held that the provisions set out in 
the distribution plans regarding distributions to the FFW were invalid on the 
ground that they provided for disbursements to be made to non-entitled persons. 
The Court of Appeal correctly found that the provisions set out in the distribution 
plan constituted standard business terms, the provisions of which were invalid to 
the extent that they contravene the essential principles of a legislative provision 
(in that regard, see B II 1 below). In order to answer the question as to whether 
such a contravention is present in the dispute at issue, it is necessary to obtain a 
clarification of the relevant EU law (see, in that regard, B II 2); the success of the 
applicant’s cross-appeal on a point of law also depends on the outcome of that 
clarification. 
16 1. The Court of Appeal correctly found that, in so far as they had been 
incorporated into the management agreement, the defendant’s distribution plans 
constituted standard business terms, the provisions of which, in cases of doubt, are 
ineffective under the first sentence of Paragraph 307(1) and point 1 of 
Paragraph 307(2) of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (German Civil Code, ‘BGB’) as 
an unreasonable disadvantage to the co-contractor if they deviate from the 
essential principles of a statutory provision (see BGH (Federal Court of Justice), 
judgment of 21 April 2016 – I ZR 198/13, BGHZ (Decisions of the Federal Court 
of Justice in Civil Cases) 210, 77 [juris, paragraphs 25 to 27] – Verlegeranteil 
(publisher’s share)). 
17 In accordance with the case-law of the Federal Court of Justice, the Court of 
Appeal considered that the essential principles established under the first sentence 
of Paragraph 7 of the Gesetz über die Wahrnehmung von Urheberrechten und 
verwandten Schutzrechten (Law on the Management of Copyright and Related 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 21. 11. 2024 – CASE C-840/24 
 
6  
Anonymised version 
Rights, ‘WahrnG’) and Paragraph 27(1) of the VGG – according to which the 
collection society establishes fixed rules that exclude an arbitrary system for 
distributing revenues arising from the rights (distribution plan) – require the 
collecting society to distribute the revenues arising from its activity exclusively to 
the entitled persons and, more specifically, in the proportion to which those 
revenues stem from the exploitation of the rights and the assertion of the claims of 
each respective entitled person. The sharing of those revenues with non-entitled 
persons is incompatible with those essential principles (with regard to the first 
sentence of Paragraph 7 of the WahrnG, see BGHZ 210, 77 [juris, paragraphs 30 
to 32] – Verlegeranteil). 
18 2. In contrast to the opinion of the Court of Appeal, it could be considered, 
however, that the distribution in favour of the FFW is compliant with the 
provision set down in Paragraph 32(1) of the VGG and should not therefore be 
regarded as unlawful sharing with a non-entitled person. In that respect, there is a 
need for clarification of the relevant EU law. 
19 a) Paragraph 32(1) of the VGG provides that collecting societies are to promote 
culturally important works and contributions. That provision does not limit the 
group of recipients of the promotion to rightholders but instead allows for the 
promotion of future creations of works and generations of contributions. 
20 b) The question of EU law in need of clarification is therefore whether it is 
compatible with Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC; with the first sentence 
of Article 6(1) of Directive 2006/115/EC; as well as with Article 11(4) and 
Article 12(4) of Directive 2014/26/EU, if, pursuant to a provision of national 
law – in the present case: Paragraph 32(1) of the VGG – a collecting society is to 
promote culturally important works and that, as consequence thereof, recipients 
also benefit from that promotion who are not (or, in any event, are not yet) part of 
the group of rightholders (first question referred). 
21 c) The starting point is the EU law requirement that the person entitled to the fair 
compensation payable in connection with the exceptions authorised under 
Article 5(2)(a) and (b) of Directive 2001/29/EC (author and rightholder), and the 
remuneration payable under the first sentence of Article 6(1) of Directive 
2006/115/EC (the author), must necessarily receive those funds (see CJEU, 
judgment of 9 February 2012 – C-277/10, GRUR 2012, 489 […] – publisher’s 
share). In that respect, it is permissible if the rightholders do not receive direct 
payment of the fair compensation, but are instead paid a portion of the revenues 
stemming from the fair compensation indirectly via social and cultural institutions 
set up for their benefit (see CJEU, judgment of 11 July 2013 – C-521/11, […] – 
Amazon v Austro-Mechana). 
22 Against that background, Paragraph 32(1) of the VGG is to be partially 
understood as meaning that, as regards the interpretation necessary to ensure 
conformity with the directive, that provision does not permit persons other than 
VG WORT 
 
7 
Anonymised version 
the holders of copyrights or related rights to be beneficiaries, unless the latter have 
agreed to that […]. 
23 d) Clarification is necessary as to whether or not, in the light of the subsequently 
issued Directive 2014/26/EU, that strict understanding is to be broadened so as to 
permit the promotion, as authorised by a resolution of the general assembly of 
members, of social, cultural or educational purposes benefiting recipients who are 
not (or, in any event, are not yet) members of the group of rightholders. 
24 aa) According to the definition laid down in Article 3(c) of Directive 2014/26/EU, 
‘rightholder’ means any person or entity, other than a collective management 
organisation, that holds a copyright or related right or, under an agreement for the 
exploitation of rights or by law, is entitled to a share of the rights revenue; 
25 Article 11(4) of Directive 2014/26/EU provides that a collective management 
organisation is not to be permitted to use rights revenue or any income arising 
from the investment of rights revenue for purposes other than distribution to 
rightholders, except where it is allowed to deduct or offset its management fees in 
compliance with a decision taken in accordance with point (d) of Article 8(5) or to 
use the rights revenue or any income arising from the investment of rights revenue 
in compliance with a decision taken in accordance with Article 8(5). According to 
Article 8(5)(d) of Directive 2014/26/EU, the general assembly of members is to 
decide on the general policy on deductions from rights revenue and from any 
income arising from the investment of rights revenue; It is apparent from 
Article 12(4) of Directive 2014/26/EU that social, cultural or educational services 
provided by a collective management organisation may be funded by such 
deductions and that such services are to be provided on the basis of fair criteria, in 
particular as regards access to, and the extent of, those services. 
26 According to the second sentence of recital 3 of Directive 2014/26/EU, collective 
management organisations provide social, cultural and educational services for the 
benefit of their rightholders and the public. Recital 28 of Directive 2014/26/EU 
mentions possible cost deductions for social, cultural or educational purposes, 
which should lie within the decision-making power of the members of the 
collective management organisation (first sentence) and calls for transparency 
regarding the rules governing such deductions (second sentence) and the uses of 
rights revenue, whereby scholarships are expressly mentioned in that respect 
(third sentence). According to the fourth sentence of recital (28) of Directive 
2014/26/EU, rightholders should have access, on a non-discriminatory basis, to 
any social, cultural or educational service funded through such deductions. 
27 With respect to non-distributable amounts, Article 13(6) of Directive 2014/26/EU 
(‘Distribution of amounts due to rightholders’) provides that Member States may 
determine the permitted uses by ensuring that such amounts are used in a separate 
and independent way in order to fund social, cultural and educational activities for 
the benefit of rightholders. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 21. 11. 2024 – CASE C-840/24 
 
8  
Anonymised version 
28 bb) The provisions set down in Article 11(4), Article 8(5)(d) and Article 12(4), as 
well as Recitals 3 and 28 of Directive 2014/26/EU suggest an understanding 
whereby it should also be possible for collecting societies to provide – in 
accordance with a resolution of the general assembly of members – social, cultural 
or educational services for the benefit of recipients other than rightholders. 
Benefiting the creators of future works or the generators of future contributions 
who are not (yet) rightholders by means of printing grants, research grants or 
scholarships could be regarded as a permissible use for ‘purposes other than’, as 
referred to in Article 11(4) of Directive 2014/26/EU, provided that it is authorised 
by a resolution of the general assembly of members. The authorisation granted to 
Member States under Article 13(6) of Directive 2014/26/EU to ensure that non-
distributable amounts are used to fund social, cultural and educational activities 
for the benefit of rightholders does not compel a different understanding since the 
provision does not concern ‘deductions’, but rather the distribution of ‘rights 
revenue’, which is also to be for the benefit of rightholders according to the 
provisions of Article 11(4) of Directive 2014/26/EU. 
29 In view of the fact that the guarantee of the fair compensation to be provided for 
under Article 5(2)(a) and (b) of Directive 2001/29/EC (author and rightholder) 
and the remuneration (author) payable under the first sentence of Article 6(1) of 
Directive 2006/115/EC can be regarded as an expression of the protection for 
intellectual property provided for under Article 17(2) of the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the use of funds to benefit recipients 
other than rightholders, which lies within the decision-making power of the 
general assembly of members, could be regarded as regulation by law of the use 
of property within the meaning of the third sentence of Article 17(1) of the 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The right to property may 
be restricted, provided that the restrictions in fact correspond to objectives of 
general interest pursued by the Community and do not constitute disproportionate 
and unacceptable interference, impairing the very substance of the right 
guaranteed (see CJEU, judgment of 3 December 1998 – C-368/96, […] – Generics 
[UK] and Others […]). According to the second sentence of Recital 3 of Directive 
2014/26/EU, collective management organisations provide social, cultural and 
educational services not only for the benefit of their rightholders but also for the 
public. The legislative restriction on the right to remuneration that ensues from the 
possibility of promoting recipients who are not rightholders is unlikely to be 
disproportionate per se, and nor is it likely to impair the very substance of the 
fundamental right to property. However, the level of compliance with the 
requirement for proportionality would still need to be evaluated with regard to the 
manner of implementation in the specific case. 
30 e) In the event that provision of the social, cultural or educational services referred 
to in Article 12(4) of Directive 2014/26/EU is permitted only to rightholders, it is 
necessary to clarify the question of EU law as to whether the permissibility of 
providing such services is dependent on the recipient of those services having a 
present right to remuneration or whether it sufficient to hold a copyright or related 
right that is not currently remunerated, as well as whether the permissibility of 
VG WORT 
 
9 
Anonymised version 
such services is conditional upon the existence of a management agreement with 
the collecting society (second question referred). 
31 If provision of the social, cultural or educational services referred to in 
Article 12(4) of Directive 2014/26/EU is permissible solely to rightholders as 
defined in Article 3(c) of Directive 2014/26/EU, then different arrangements are 
conceivable: A rightholder may have a present right to remuneration, or may in 
fact hold a copyright protected right but no present right to remuneration. 
Furthermore, a distinction can then be drawn as to whether or not the rightholder 
has entered into a management agreement with the collecting society. It must be 
clarified whether those different factual situations affect the permissibility of 
providing the social, cultural or educational services referred to in Article 12(4) of 
Directive 2014/26/EU. 
[…]