62024CJ0182_RES
Case C‑182/24
RB, as successor in title to Claude Chabrol_andAD, represented by his guardian NM, as successor in title to Claude Chabrol_andDR, as successor in title to Claude Chabrol_andZB, as successor in title to Claude Chabrol_andVQ, as successor in title to Claude Chabrol_andRZ, as successor in title to Paul Gégauff_andDQ, as successor in title to Paul Gégauff_andFI, as successor in title to Paul Gégauff_andLF, as successor in title to Paul Gégauff
v
Société des Auteurs et Compositeurs Dramatiques (SACD)andRadio Days SARLandBrinter Company LtdandBSandMWandArtedis SAandPanoceanic Films SA
(Request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal judiciaire de Paris)
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 December 2025
(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Intellectual property – Copyright and related rights – Directive 2001/29/EC – Articles 2 to 4 and 8 – Directive 2004/48/EC – Articles 1 to 3 – Directive 2006/115/EC – Directive 2006/116/EC – Articles 1, 2 and 9 – Articles 17 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Remedies – Right to an effective remedy – National legislation making the admissibility of an action for infringement brought by one of the co-holders of the copyright in a cinematographic work conditional on all of the co-holders of that copyright being called on to participate in the proceedings)
Approximation of laws – Copyright and related rights – Directives 2001/29, 2004/48 and 2006/116 – Right to an effective remedy – National legislation making the admissibility of an action for infringement of the copyright in a collective work conditional on all of the co-holders of that copyright being called on to participate in the proceedings – Whether permissible – Conditions – No unnecessarily complicated or costly procedure – Compliance with the principle of effectiveness and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 17 and 47; European Parliament and Council Directives 2001/29, Art. 8, 2004/48, Art. 3, and 2006/116, Art. 1)
(see paragraphs 52, 54-60, 63-78, operative part)
Résumé
Hearing a request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal judiciaire de Paris (Court of Paris, France), the Court of Justice rules on the compatibility with EU law of national legislation that makes the admissibility of an action for infringement of the copyright in a collective work conditional on all of the co-holders of that copyright being called on to participate in the proceedings.
Mr Chabrol produced fourteen films, five of which he made in collaboration with Mr Gégauff. In 1990, they assigned the exploitation rights to those films to a distributor for a period of thirty years. In 2019, the respective heirs of Mr Chabrol and Mr Gégauff, the applicants in the main proceedings, brought an action against the distributor in question and other companies, seeking, inter alia, an award of damages for the loss suffered as a result of breach of contractual obligations and infringement of the copyright in the films at issue.
On the basis of the national legislation at issue, the defendants in the main proceedings raised an objection of inadmissibility, on the basis that the 19 co-authors of the films had not been called on to participate in the proceedings. The applicants were unable to locate or identify all of the co-authors or their successors in title, owing to the number of films concerned, the age of those films, the wide range of individuals involved and the death of some of those co-authors.
In that context, the referring court is uncertain, in essence, whether the national legislation at issue is compatible with Article 8 of Directive 2001/29, (
1
) Article 3 of Directive 2004/48 (
2
) and Article 1 of Directive 2006/116, (
3
) read in conjunction with Articles 17 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).
Findings of the Court
In the first place, the Court notes that Article 8 of Directive 2001/29, Article 3 of Directive 2004/48 and Article 1 of Directive 2006/116 require Member States to provide for the procedures necessary to ensure the effective protection of the intellectual property rights covered by those directives, prohibiting inter alia procedures which are unnecessarily complicated or costly. By contrast, none of those articles determines, by its wording alone, the detailed rules for that protection where there are multiple co-holders of a copyright. As regards the context of those provisions, the Court observes that the other articles of the three directives also do not lay down the detailed rules for the exercise of the remedies concerned where there are multiple co-holders of a copyright. As regards the objectives pursued, it is apparent from the recitals of those directives that they seek, inter alia, to ensure a high level of protection of intellectual property, including copyright. In particular, as regards Directive 2004/48, its provisions are not intended to govern all aspects of intellectual property rights, but only those aspects inherent, first, in the enforcement of those rights and, second, in infringement of them, by requiring that there must be effective legal remedies designed to prevent, terminate or rectify any infringement of an existing intellectual property right. Consequently, subject to the obligation to provide remedies that are not unnecessarily complicated or costly, it is for the Member States, under the principle of procedural autonomy, to determine the detailed procedural rules governing the remedies concerned, including in cases where there are multiple co-holders of intellectual property rights.
In the second place, the Court examines whether the procedure at issue is not unnecessarily complicated or costly and whether it is liable to conflict with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness and with the requirements stemming from Articles 17 and 47 of the Charter. In that regard, it observes that the interpretation of the national legislation by the Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation, France) has the effect that an action brought by a co-author will be inadmissible where all of the other co-authors or, where appropriate, their successors in title have not been called on to participate in the proceedings, even where it proves very difficult, if not impossible, to call on them to participate, by reason of circumstances beyond the applicant’s control.
First, the Court finds that the requirement to call on all of the co-authors and/or their successors in title to participate in the proceedings has the effect of making it impossible to examine their claims before the courts, in view of the difficulty of identifying and, consequently, calling on all of the successors in title of the co-holders of the copyright concerned to participate in the proceedings. It is for the referring court to ascertain whether, in the present case, that requirement has the effect of making the procedure concerned unnecessarily complicated and costly.
Second, the file does not suggest any breach of the principle of equivalence. However, as regards the principle of effectiveness, the Court notes that, where there are serious and persistent difficulties in identifying and locating co-authors of a collective work, making the admissibility of legal proceedings brought by co-authors of that work who intend to defend their rights conditional on all of the other co-authors of that work being called on to participate in the proceedings is liable to make the exercise of the rights which EU law confers on co-authors excessively difficult.
Third, as regards the right to property enshrined in Article 17 of the Charter, the Court finds that, where several persons jointly hold intellectual property, such as copyright, in the same work, they are all regarded as having acquired, under EU law, the right to own that intellectual property and are protected in the same way. Recognition of the status of author of a cinematographic work, such as in the present case, is a sufficient condition for exercising the right to property.
As regards the right to an effective remedy, the Court recalls that the essence of that right, enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter, includes the possibility of accessing a court or tribunal with the power to ensure respect for the rights guaranteed by EU law and, to that end, to consider all the issues of fact and of law that are relevant for resolving the case before it. It is true that a restriction such as that resulting from the national legislation protects the rights of co-holders who are absent, enabling them to have sufficient information to decide whether or not to participate in the proceedings, which contributes, inter alia, to ensuring respect for the right to property of those co-holders and to achieving, with regard to them, the objective pursued by the three directives. However, it appears that the effect of that legislation, despite the efforts and diligence of the applicants in calling on all of the co-holders of the copyright to participate in the proceedings, is to make it impossible to examine their claims before the courts. In such a case, the obligation to call on all of those co-holders to participate in the proceedings, failing which the action concerned will be inadmissible, appears to prevent those applicants from exercising their own rights. The right of co-holders to defend their copyright cannot be made conditional on procedural requirements that are impossible or very difficult to meet, which would, in practice, be tantamount to neutralising that right and would thus infringe the fundamental right guaranteed in Article 47 of the Charter.
Subject to verification by the referring court, it thus appears that the interpretation and application of the procedural requirements imposed on the applicants may be such as to make the procedure concerned unnecessarily complicated and costly and to undermine both the principle of effectiveness and Article 47 of the Charter. If the referring court were to find that it is not possible to interpret its national law in conformity with EU law, it would be required to ensure, within its jurisdiction, the judicial protection for individuals flowing from that Article 47, and to ensure its full effectiveness by disapplying, if need be, the national provisions concerned.
Accordingly, the Court states that Article 8 of Directive 2001/29, Article 3 of Directive 2004/48 and Article 1 of Directive 2006/116 do not preclude national legislation that makes the admissibility of an action for infringement of the copyright in a collective work conditional on all of the co-holders of that copyright being called on to participate in the proceedings, provided that the interpretation and application of that legislation do not make the procedure provided for unnecessarily complicated or costly, and that legislation must not make it impossible or excessively difficult for a single co-author or several co-authors to bring such an action. The national court must, in any event, ensure compliance with the right to effective judicial protection enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter.
(
1
)	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).
(
2
)	Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45, and corrigendum OJ 2004 L 195, p. 16).
(
3
)	Directive 2006/116/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights (OJ 2006 L 372, p. 12).