Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2025:1002
Date: 2025-12-18
Language of the case: Romanian

Anonymised version 
Translation C-598/24 – 1 
Case C-598/24 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
16 September 2024 
Referring court: 
Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
14 May 2024 
Appellant on a point of law, appellant and applicant at first instance 
CY 
Respondents on an appeal on a point of law and defendants at first instance 
Gândul Media Network SRL 
HO 
  
[…] 
ÎNALTA CURTE DE CASAȚIE ȘI JUSTIȚIE (HIGH COURT OF 
CASSATION AND JUSTICE) 
SECȚIA I CIVILĂ (FIRST CIVIL SECTION) 
[…] 
Public hearing of 14 May 2024 
[…] 
[procedure] 
 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 5. 2024 – CASE C-598/24 
 
2  
Anonymised version 
THE ÎNALTA CURTE (HIGH COURT) 
Ruling on the present case, finds as follows: 
Subject matter of the action 
1. By an application registered at the Tribunalul București (Regional Court, 
Bucharest, Romania) […], CY, the applicant at first instance (‘the applicant’), 
brought an action against Gândul Media Network SRL and HO, the defendants 
(‘the defendants’), seeking a declaration that the defendants had infringed the 
applicant’s copyright, [which occurred] through the unauthorised reproduction by 
the defendants of the applicant’s work, in the form of the publication of an article 
constituting a faithful copy of that work. 
2. At the same time, the applicant sought compensation for the material and 
non-material damage caused by the reproduction of her work without the right to 
do so, principally by requiring that the defendant Gândul Media Network SRL 
remove the article published on Gândul’s website and by requiring that the 
defendants, jointly and severally, pay the amount of 2 500 Romanian lei (RON) as 
compensation for non-material damage. 
Judgments given at first instance and on appeal 
3. The first judgment […] [of] 26 April 2022 given by the Secția a IV- a Civilă 
(Fourth Division for Civil Matters) of the Bucharest Regional Court dismissed the 
action as unfounded. 
4. CY, as appellant in appeal proceedings, appealed civil judgment 
No 654/26.04.2022. 
5. By decision No […] [of] 3 May 2023, the Curtea de Apel București – Secția 
a IV a Civilă (Fourth Division for Civil Matters of the Court of Appeal, Bucharest, 
Romania; ‘the Court of Appeal’) dismissed the appeal as unfounded. 
Background to the dispute 
6. The applicant CY posted the following text on her personal Facebook page, 
and re-posted that text on the same social network (‘the social network’) three 
years later, on 8 September 2021, at the beginning of the school year: 
‘Mic ghid pentru părinți la începerea școlii: 
- cafeaua o achiziționez singură, dintr-un loc anume; 
- plicul strecurat subtil în vreo punguță de cadou lângă un pachețel 
„inofensiv” cu o eșarfă sau altceva nu face decât să-mi crească tensiunea și 
ajunge rapid la expeditor cu probabilitatea ca fiul/fiica să nu mai intre la clasa 
mea; 
GÂNDUL MEDIA NETWORK 
 
3 
Anonymised version 
- parfumurile nu se fac cadou, fac parte din categoria cosmeticelor intime pe 
care fiecare și le alege; 
- bijuteriile mi le cumpăr tot singură și foarte rar, cele pe care le port sunt 
foarte puține și au valoare sentimentală (le-am primit de la oameni dragi din 
familie); 
- stresul la care mă supuneți prin insistențele care în final se dovedesc inutile 
este în detrimentul copiilor dumneavoastră; 
- pentru munca pe care o prestez primesc un salariu, mi-am asumat asta, 
indiferent că este sau nu suficient; nu „așa se face”, „așa se cade”, „așa 
trebuie”! Nu trebuie, nu se cade, nu se face deloc așa! 
- dacă muncesc în plus sau îmi ajut elevii așa cum cred eu că trebuie să o fac 
nu aștept niciun fel de „foloase", singura mulțumire pe care o am este să îi văd pe 
scenă așa cum îi pregătesc eu să se prezinte. 
Așa încât sper ca la începutul acestui an să nu mai trebuiască să țin piept 
încercărilor insistente și interminabile de a mă cadorisi cu diverse lucruri de care 
realmente nu am nevoie și pe care oricum nu le primesc. Elevii mei cu „vechime” 
cunosc deja aceste aspecte, știu până și faptul că nu-mi plac florile ucise. 
#săînceapășcoala’. 
‘Short guide for parents at the start of school: 
- I buy my own coffee on my own, in a specific place; 
- discreetly slipping an envelope into some gift bag along with a “harmless” 
small package containing a scarf or something else only puts me under more 
pressure and the bag will quickly be returned to the sender, with the likelihood 
that that person’s son or daughter will no longer be in my class; 
- perfumes should not be given as gifts, they fall into the category of personal 
cosmetics that each person chooses for him or herself; 
- I also buy my own jewellery and only do so very rarely, the items I wear are 
very limited in number and have sentimental value (I have been gifted them by 
loved ones in my family); 
- the stress you subject me to with your repeated demands, which are 
ultimately pointless, is to the detriment of your children; 
- I receive a salary for the work I do, I am aware of this and I accept it, 
regardless of whether it is sufficient or not; I do not [agree with the idea that] 
“this is how it’s done” “this is the right thing to do”, “it has to be done this 
way”! It does not have to be done that way, that is not the right thing to do, that is 
not how it is done at all!; 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 5. 2024 – CASE C-598/24 
 
4  
Anonymised version 
- if I work harder or help my students as I feel I should, I do not expect any 
kind of “bonus”; the only satisfaction I get is seeing them on stage as I prepare 
them to perform. 
So I hope that at the beginning of this year I will no longer have to put up with the 
insistent and endless attempts to give me various gifts that I do not really need 
and that I will not accept in any case. My “older” students are already aware of 
these considerations, and they also know that I do not like cut flowers. 
#letschoolbegin’. 
7. On 14 September 2021, an article entitled ‘Mesajul inedit al unei profesoare 
pentru părinții care se gândesc să î îi dea cadouri la început de an școlar’ (‘An 
original message from a teacher for parents who are thinking of giving her gifts at 
the start of the school year’) was published on the website of the online newspaper 
Gândul. 
8. The article was signed by a reporter and contained the following text: ‘A 
flute teacher at the Colegiul Național de Muzică „George Enescu” (George 
Enescu National College of Music) in Bucharest wrote a message on Facebook for 
parents who want to offer “kindnesses” at the start of the school year. Tired of 
refusing “the gifts” the parents of her students thought to give her because “it’s the 
right thing to do”, CY sent them an original message’. 
9. The text posted by the applicant was then reproduced in full. It could be 
accessed via a link created with the words ‘profesoara CY le-a transmis un mesaj 
inedit’ (‘the teacher CY sent them an original message’). 
10. It was not disputed that the text was published without the prior consent of 
the applicant CY and that the source and author’s name were added subsequently. 
11. The Bucharest Regional Court, as court of first instance, held that the text 
posted by the applicant did not constitute an original work within the meaning of 
Article 7 of Legea nr. 8/1996 privind dreptul de autor și drepturile conexe (Law 
No 8/1996 on copyright and related rights; ‘Law No 8/1996’) and, consequently, 
was not covered by the legal protection that that law grants only to certain forms 
of expression of human creativity, since it constituted a list of complaints from the 
applicant, drawn up in her capacity as a teacher in respect of her relationship with 
the students to whom she provides instruction. 
Legal assessments by the Court of Appeal 
12. In the grounds for its decision, the Court of Appeal referred to the concept of 
a ‘work’ as an autonomous concept of EU law, as is clear from the Court of 
Justice’s settled case-law, which must be interpreted and applied uniformly, 
requiring two cumulative conditions to be satisfied, the first of which concerns the 
requirement for originality, in the sense that the object reflects the personality of 
its author, inasmuch as it expresses the author’s free and creative choices. 
GÂNDUL MEDIA NETWORK 
 
5 
Anonymised version 
13. From this point of view, the text posted by the applicant on the social 
network is not an original work, because it does not go beyond the limits of 
normal discourse, in the context of a verbal discussion between teacher and 
student or teacher and parent. The written transposition of the applicant’s ideas 
concerning her position with regard to certain alleged customs in the school 
environment is placed in the context in which such ideas are usually 
communicated, without having an individual epic or discursive narrative thread 
that is recognisable in comparison with other similar texts. 
14. In terms of the action of the defendants Gândul Media Network SRL and 
HO, consisting in the publication of the applicant’s text, there can be no liability 
on their part, since that action is not unlawful in nature. 
15. The real and obvious intention of the article was to support the applicant’s 
opinion, to question in a more publicly accessible medium the issue to which the 
applicant was referring, but not to appropriate in any way the message, the 
creative content or the form of that article. 
Proceedings for appeal on a point of law 
16. The applicant brought an appeal on a point of law against decision […] [of] 
3 May 2023, delivered by the Court of Appeal, before the Înalta Curte de Casație 
și Justiție (High Court of Cassation and Justice, Romania; ‘the High Court’). 
17. By her grounds of appeal, the applicant essentially challenged the refusal of 
the appellate court to recognise her text as a work, within the meaning of 
copyright law, and criticised that court for not applying the criteria derived from 
the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union for the assessment of 
copyright protection. 
18. Moreover, by not recognising the text as a work [under the copyright law], 
the appellate court deprived the applicant of the right to authorise or prohibit the 
reproduction and public communication of her text, even though the non-
permitted use does not fall within any of the scenarios provided for in Article 35 
of Law No 8/1996. 
19. By her grounds of appeal, the applicant requested that a question be referred 
to the Court of Justice of the European Union, with that question being 
subsequently reworded […]. 
20. In addition to that question, the High Court added a second question […]. 
[procedure] 
The High Court takes the view that, in order to resolve the dispute, it is 
necessary to refer the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union in 
accordance with Article 267 TFEU, for the reasons set out below. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 5. 2024 – CASE C-598/24 
 
6  
Anonymised version 
Relevant legal provisions 
21. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Paris 
Act of 24 July 1971), as amended on 28 September 1979 (‘the Berne Convention’) 
‘Article 2 
(1) The expression “literary and artistic works” shall include every production in 
the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of 
its expression, such as books, pamphlets and other writings; lectures, addresses, 
sermons and other works of the same nature; … 
22. 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 
‘Article 2 
Reproduction right 
Member States shall provide for the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit direct 
or indirect, temporary or permanent reproduction by any means and in any form, 
in whole or in part: 
(a) for authors, of their works; … 
Article 5 
Exceptions and limitations 
3. Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations to the rights provided 
for in Articles 2 and 3 in the following cases: 
… 
(c) reproduction by the press, communication to the public or making available of 
published articles on current economic, political or religious topics or of broadcast 
works or other subject matter of the same character, in cases where such use is not 
expressly reserved, and as long as the source, including the author’s name, is 
indicated, or use of works or other subject matter in connection with the reporting 
of current events, to the extent justified by the informatory purpose and as long as 
the source, including the author's name, is indicated, unless this turns out to be 
impossible; 
… 
5. The exceptions and limitations provided for in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 shall 
only be applied in certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal 
GÂNDUL MEDIA NETWORK 
 
7 
Anonymised version 
exploitation of the work or other subject matter and do not unreasonably prejudice 
the legitimate interests of the rightholder.’ 
23. Legea nr. 8/1996 privind dreptul de autor și drepturile conexe (Law 
No 8/1996 on copyright and related rights) (version in force in 2021). 
‘Article 7 
Copyright shall cover original works of intellectual creation in the literary, artistic 
or scientific fields, however they are created, however or in whatever form they 
are expressed, and regardless of their value or purpose, such as: 
(a) literary and journalistic writings, lectures, sermons, pleadings and any other 
written or oral work, as well as computer programmes; 
… 
Article 9 
The following are not eligible for legal copyright protection: 
(a) ideas, theories, concepts, scientific discoveries, procedures, methods of 
operation or mathematical concepts as such and inventions, contained in a work, 
however they are acquired, written, explained or expressed; 
… 
(f) simple facts and data. 
Article 35 
(1) The following uses of a work that has previously been made available to the 
public are permitted without the author’s consent and without the payment of any 
remuneration, provided they are compatible with fair practice, do not conflict with 
the normal exploitation of the work and do not cause harm to the author or the 
rightholder: 
… 
(2) under the conditions laid down in paragraph (1), reproduction, distribution, 
broadcasting or communication to the public is permitted, where there is no direct 
or indirect commercial or economic advantage: 
… 
(c) short fragments of works, in the context of information on current events, but 
only to the extent justified by the purpose in pursuit of which the information is 
being provided; 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 5. 2024 – CASE C-598/24 
 
8  
Anonymised version 
…’ 
Grounds put forward by the High Court for referring the questions for a 
preliminary ruling 
24. The first question that the High Court, as the court hearing the appeal on a 
point of law, is submitting to the Court of Justice of the European Union relates to 
the classification of a text posted on a social network as a ‘work’ that is protected 
by copyright within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29. 
25. The question relates to Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29, because the initial 
action was based on the exclusive right of authors to authorise or prohibit 
reproduction of their works. 
26. Nevertheless, the content of an author’s exclusive right – in the sense of 
whether the defendants’ action of publishing the applicant’s text constitutes a 
‘reproduction’ or, rather, a communication to the public – is not a relevant issue 
for the purposes of this reference procedure (and is not the subject of the request 
to the referring court, as the body responsible for reviewing the legality of the 
judgment). 
27. The first essential aspect on which the lower courts focused their analysis 
and on which this appellate court is called upon to decide relates to the existence 
of a ‘work’, that concept indeed also being found in other provisions of Directive 
2001/29. 
28. As reflected in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 
the concept of ‘work’ constitutes an autonomous concept of EU law that must be 
interpreted and applied uniformly by the national courts [judgment of 
12 September 2019, Cofemel, C-683/17, EU:C:2019:721, paragraph 29 and the 
case-law cited]. 
29. According to [the Court of Justice of the European Union] copyright within 
the meaning of Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29 can only apply in the case of 
subject matter that is original, in the sense of being the author’s own intellectual 
creation. 
30. In that sense, originality presupposes that the subject matter reflects the 
personality of its author, as an expression of that author’s free and creative 
choices. In so far as the realisation of a subject matter has been dictated by 
technical considerations, rules or other constraints, which have left no room for 
creative freedom, that subject matter cannot be regarded as possessing the 
originality required for it to constitute a work (Cofemel judgment, paragraphs 29 
to 31). 
31. At the same time, for there to be a ‘work’ as referred to in Directive 
2001/29, the subject matter protected by copyright must be expressed in a manner 
GÂNDUL MEDIA NETWORK 
 
9 
Anonymised version 
that makes it identifiable with sufficient precision and objectivity [judgment of 
13 November 2018, Levola Hengelo, C-310/17, EU:C:2018:899, paragraph 40]. 
32. However, according to Article 2(1) of the Berne Convention, the expression 
‘literary and artistic works’ includes ‘every production in the literary, scientific 
and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its expression, such as 
books, pamphlets and other writings; lectures, addresses, sermons and other works 
of the same nature’. 
33. The Court of Justice [of the European Union] has consistently held that, 
although the European Union is not a party to the Berne Convention, it is 
nevertheless obliged – under Article 1(4) of the WIPO Copyright Treaty, to which 
it is a party and which Directive 2001/29 is intended to implement – to comply 
with Articles 1 to 21 of the Berne Convention (judgment of 13 November 2018, 
Levola Hengelo, C-310/17, EU:C:2018:899, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited). 
34. Accordingly, it is an unequivocal fact that Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29 
refers to Article 2(1) of the Berne Convention in the sense that, in order to be 
covered by legal protection under copyright, a production must constitute a work 
in the literary, artistic or scientific field, regardless the mode or form of 
expression. 
35. Similarly, it is clear from the use of the term ‘such as’ in Article 2(1) of the 
Berne Convention that the list of categories of works is not exhaustive. 
36. Nevertheless, with reference to a work in the literary field, the referring 
court states that it is not clear how the phrase ‘other writings’ in Article 2(1) of the 
Berne Convention should be interpreted. 
37. On the one hand, based on a broad interpretation, this expression can mean 
that any production written by an individual, whether it consists of a few words or 
is, for example, a novel, is a potential work in the literary field, and classification 
as a ‘work’, in the sense of an original intellectual creation, is determined on a 
case-by-case basis. 
38. In such a situation, no text – irrespective of medium – can be excluded a 
priori from protection by copyright (just as, by means of this approach, no a priori 
exclusion of any form of personal expression having the ‘same nature’ as lectures, 
addresses or sermons would be permitted in the case of oral works under Article 2 
of the Berne Convention). 
39. On the other hand, the scope of the protection afforded to a work coming 
within the literary field within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29, 
by reference to Article 2(1) of the Berne Convention, could, however, be limited 
to identified or identifiable categories of literary creations, which come, explicitly 
or implicitly, within the scope of those two provisions. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 5. 2024 – CASE C-598/24 
 
10  
Anonymised version 
40. Before determining whether it is an original intellectual creation, the court 
would necessarily first filter the content of the written production to establish 
whether it falls within a literary genre or is part of a literary category, with shared 
common characteristics. It would then seek to determine whether that production 
was original, in the sense of being an expression of the author’s free and creative 
choices. 
41. Freedom of creation and the possible existence of technical considerations, 
rules or other limitations would arise in a particular context of composition and 
linguistic expression, specific to a certain type of work. 
42. A preliminary examination of the notion of a ‘work’ emerges from the case-
law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. 
43. It could also be observed that the two conditions required for something to 
be classified as a ‘work’ (the fact that it is original and that it can be objectively 
identified) have concerned different creations, after they were identified as 
belonging to a certain category of works. The Court [of Justice of the European 
Union] has indicated in these cases, in a general manner, the elements to be taken 
into consideration by the national court, in the particular circumstances, for the 
purpose of recognising copyright protection. 
44. Thus, in the [judgment of 16 July 2009, Infopaq International, C-5/08, 
EU:C:2009:465], the Court [of Justice of the European Union] held, first, that the 
case concerned newspaper articles, their author’s own intellectual creation, 
evidenced clearly from the manner in which the subject was presented and the 
linguistic expression (paragraph 44). Subsequently, it held that, in such works, it is 
through the choice, sequence and combination of those words that the author may 
express his or her creativity in an original manner and achieve a result that is an 
intellectual creation (paragraph 45). 
45. As far as other works are concerned, the Court [of Justice of the European 
Union] also seems to approach the issue from the point of view of the category to 
which the subject of protection belongs, identifying protectable categories from 
among those mentioned as such by various rules of EU law: databases (Directive 
96/9/EC), computer programs (Directive 2009/24/EC), photographs (Berne 
Convention, Directive 2006/116/EC), works of applied art (Berne Convention), 
etc. 
46. The key point of the assessment expressed in this reference for a preliminary 
ruling is to determine whether a text posted on a social network, in which the 
author transmits in the virtual medium a piece of information – in essence, her 
opinion regarding social practices considered inappropriate in the school 
environment – is included in the ‘other writings’ referred to in Article 2(1) of the 
Berne Convention. 
47. In that regard, the High Court is asking the Court of Justice [of the European 
Union] to clarify whether Article 2(1) of the Berne Convention should be 
GÂNDUL MEDIA NETWORK 
 
11 
Anonymised version 
interpreted broadly or restrictively, as indicated above, without calling into 
question the fact that works in an online medium benefit from copyright 
protection equal to that afforded to any work, but in so far as they constitute, for 
their part, an original intellectual creation. 
48. The second question submitted to the Court of Justice [of the European 
Union] concerns the interpretation of Article 5(3)(c) of Directive 2001/29, which 
is part of the rules governing exceptions or limitations to the rights referred to in 
Articles 2 and 3 of that directive. 
49. Specifically, reference is made to [the second sentence of] Article 5(3)(c) [of 
Directive 2001/29], which refers to the ‘use of works or other subject matter in 
connection with the reporting of current events, to the extent justified by the 
informatory purpose and as long as the source, including the author’s name, is 
indicated, unless this turns out to be impossible’. 
50. The High Court considers that, through the applicant CY’s grounds of 
appeal, it has been entrusted with the task of investigating exceptional situations 
concerning freedom of the press, even though the lower courts did not specifically 
identify such a situation among those envisaged by Romanian copyright law, but 
admitted arguments focussing on freedom of the press. 
51. In addition, the assessments of the Court of Justice [of the European Union] 
in the [judgments of 29 July 2019, Funke Medien NRW (C-469/17, 
EU:C:2019:623), and Spiegel Online, (C-516/17, EU:C:2019:625)] (both […] 
delivered by the Grand Chamber) should be borne in mind. 
52. The Court [of Justice of the European Union] held in both cases that 
‘freedom of information and freedom of the press, enshrined in Article 11 of the 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, are not capable of 
justifying, beyond the exceptions or limitations provided for in Article 5(2) and 
(3) of Directive 2001/29, a derogation from the author’s exclusive rights of 
reproduction and of communication to the public, referred to in Article 2(a) and 
Article 3(1) of that directive respectively.’ 
53. Thus, if the particular circumstances of the case before the national court do 
not come within the exceptions and limitations provided for in Article 5(2) and (3) 
of Directive 2001/29, freedom of the press cannot be relied on against the holder 
of the exclusive right referred to in Article 2(a) of the directive [or of the exclusive 
rights of the author referred to in Article 3(1)] to justify an infringement of that 
right. 
54. Article 5(3)(c) of Directive 2001/29 refers, in [the second sentence], to a 
situation that may be compatible with the situation in the case pending before this 
referring court, which justifies the value of the present reference. 
55. In accordance with its jurisdiction, the High Court rules only on the points of 
law in a case, and it cannot therefore rule on the merits, in particular as regards the 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 5. 2024 – CASE C-598/24 
 
12  
Anonymised version 
impact of the exception scenario. For that to happen, it would be necessary to 
order that the appeal decision be set aside and the case referred back for a new 
trial, with directions as to the new trial, also taking into account any review by the 
Court of Justice of the European Union. 
56. The doubt that led to this reference for a preliminary ruling, through the 
second question, arises as regards the issue of whether Article 35(2)(c) of Law 
No 8/1996 on copyright and related rights – in the version from 2020 – is 
compatible with [the second sentence of] Article 5(3)(c) of Directive 2001/29. 
57. First, the referring court is asking the Court of Justice to clarify whether the 
publication by the press of the text posted by the applicant CY on Facebook can 
constitute a ‘use of works or other subject matter in connection with the reporting 
of current events’, within the meaning of Article 5(3)(c) of that directive. 
58. The Court [of Justice of the European Union] has assessed that issue 
previously in a specific case, answering in the affirmative (judgment of 29 July 
2019, Funke Medien NRW, C-469/17, EU:C:2019:623, paragraph 75). 
59. In the referring court’s view, however, it is not clear from the judgment of 
the Court [of Justice of the European Union] what the answer is in different 
circumstances. 
60. It should therefore be determined whether the media coverage, at the 
beginning of the school year, of a teacher’s opinion on practices that he or she 
considers inappropriate in the school environment constitutes the broadcasting of 
a ‘current event’. 
61. Similarly to the case in Funke Medien, the defendant Gândul Media 
Network SRL stated the name of the author and created a hyperlink to the text 
posted on Facebook, but this occurred after the full publication of the applicant’s 
text. 
62. Unlike in the case in Funke Medien, the defendant in the present case did not 
issue an invitation to readers to react, and it is therefore unclear in these 
circumstances whether the exception in [the second sentence of] Article 5(3)(c) of 
Directive [2001/29] can be held to apply even in the absence of the initiation of a 
public debate in relation to the topic in question. 
63. Second, strictly with regard to the issue of whether Article 35(2)(c) of Law 
No 8/1996 is compatible with [the second sentence of] Article 5(3)(c) of Directive 
2001/29, the referring court states as follows. 
64. In its judgments in the cases of Funke Medien and Spiegel Online, the Court 
[of Justice of the European Union] expressly stated that [the second sentence of] 
Article 5(3)(c) of Directive 2001/29 should be interpreted as not constituting 
measures of full harmonisation of the scope of the exceptions or limitations that it 
contains. 
GÂNDUL MEDIA NETWORK 
 
13 
Anonymised version 
65. Therefore, Member States have a certain discretion in implementing the rule, 
but this discretion must be exercised within the limits imposed by EU law, namely 
only if such exceptions or limitations comply with all the conditions laid down in 
that provision [judgment of 29 July 2019, Funke Medien NRW, C-469/17, 
EU:C:2019:623, paragraphs 46 and 48)]. 
66. Furthermore, the list of exceptions and limitations contained in Article 5 of 
the directive is exhaustive, and to allow each Member State to derogate from an 
author’s exclusive rights, beyond that list, would endanger the effectiveness of the 
harmonisation of copyright and related rights effected by [Directive 2001/29], as 
well as the objective of legal certainty pursued by it [judgment of 29 July 2019, 
Funke Medien NRW, C-469/17, EU:C:2019:623, paragraphs 56 and 62]. 
67. Article 35(2)(c) of Law No 8/1996 reads as follows: 
‘under the conditions laid down in paragraph (1), reproduction, distribution, 
broadcasting or communication to the public is permitted, where there is no direct 
or indirect commercial or economic advantage: … 
(c) short fragments of works, in the context of information on current events, but 
only to the extent justified by the purpose in pursuit of which the information is 
being provided; …’. 
68. However, [the second sentence of] Article 5(3)(c) of Directive 2001/29 does 
not limit reproduction (or other acts of use) to ‘short fragments of works’, and 
neither does it require the absence of ‘direct or indirect commercial or economic 
advantage’. 
69. In those circumstances, the question arises as to whether the implementation 
of Article 5(3)(c) of Directive [2001/29] by Law No 8/1996 fulfils all the 
conditions laid down by the provision of EU law and is such as to ensure the 
effectiveness of Directive [2001/29] or, on the contrary, whether the national law 
has created an impermissible exception, outside the harmonised, exhaustive 
framework of exceptions to the exercise of copyright. 
[…] 
[second question, repeated in the operative part] 
ON THOSE GROUNDS 
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW, 
[THE HIGH COURT] DECIDES AS FOLLOWS: 
To admit the request to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice of the 
European Union: 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 5. 2024 – CASE C-598/24 
 
14  
Anonymised version 
Must the provisions of Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29 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 be interpreted as 
meaning that a text posted on a social network expressing an opinion relating to 
social practices regarded as inappropriate may be considered to be a work 
protected by copyright? 
Must the provisions of Article 5(3)(c) of Directive 2001/29 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 be interpreted as 
precluding a provision of national law that permits the use, for the purposes of 
providing information on topical issues, of only short extracts from a work but not 
of the work as a whole, in particular where it is of short length, and only on 
condition that there is no direct or indirect commercial or economic advantage? 
[…] 
[procedure, signatures]