16

In those circumstances, the Østre Landsret decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘1. Is it compatible with [Directive 2001/29] for a national law to provide that compensation is to be paid to rightholders for reproductions made using the following sources: (a) files, where the rightholder has consented to the use in question and for which the customer has paid a levy (licensed content from online trading sites, for example); (b) files, where the rightholder has consented to the use in question and for which the customer has not paid a levy (licensed content, for example, in connection with commercial offers); (c) the user’s own DVD, CD, MP3 player, computer, etc., where effective technological measures have not been applied; (d) the user’s own DVD, CD, MP3 player, computer, etc., where effective technological measures have been applied; (e) a third party’s DVD, CD, MP3 player, computer or other device.; (f) unlawfully copied works from the internet or other sources; (g) files copied lawfully by some other means from, for example, the internet (from lawful sources where no licence has been granted)? 2. How must a Member States’ legislation on fair compensation … take account of effective technological measures (Article 6 of Directive [2001/29])? 3. For the purpose of calculating [fair compensation], what constitutes “certain situations where the prejudice to the rightholder would be minimal” (recital 35 in the preamble to Directive 2001/29), with the result that it would not be compatible with Directive [2001/29] for Member States to enact legislation which provides for compensation to be paid to rightholders for such copying for private use …? 4. (a) If it is accepted that the primary or most essential function of mobile telephone memory cards is not private copying, is it compatible with Directive [2001/29] for Member States to enact legislation which provides for compensation to be paid to rightholders for copying on mobile telephone memory cards? (b) If it is accepted that private copying is one of the primary or most essential functions of mobile telephone memory cards, is it compatible with Directive [2001/29] for Member States to enact legislation which provides for compensation to be paid to rightholders for copying on mobile telephone memory cards? 5. Is it compatible with the concept of “fair balance” in recital 31 in the preamble to Directive [2001/29] and with the uniform interpretation of the concept of “fair compensation” in Article 5(2)(b) of the directive, which must be based on “prejudice”, for Member States to enact legislation under which a levy is charged on memory cards, whereas no levy is charged in respect of internal memory such as [that of] MP3 players or iPods, which are designed and primarily used for storing copies made for private use? 6. (a) Does Directive [2001/29] preclude Member States from enacting legislation which provides that a producer and/or importer who sells memory cards to business customers, who in turn sell them on to both individuals and business customers, without the producer’s and/or importer’s having knowledge of whether the memory cards are sold to individuals or to business customers, are required to pay a private copying levy? (b) Is the answer to question 6(a) affected if provisions are laid down in a Member State’s legislation under which producers, importers and/or distributors do not have to pay a levy on memory cards used for business purposes, producers, importers and/or distributors who have nevertheless paid the levy are entitled to reimbursement of the levy paid in respect of memory cards used for business purposes, and producers, importers and/or distributors may sell memory cards to other undertakings registered with the organisation responsible for administering the levy scheme without having to pay the levy? (c) Is the answer to questions 6(a) and 6(b) affected: (i) if provisions are laid down in a Member State’s legislation under which producers, importers and/or distributors do not have to pay a levy on memory cards used for business purposes, where the concept of “use for business purposes” is interpreted as conferring a right of deduction, applicable only to undertakings approved by Copydan, whereas the levy must be paid in respect of memory cards used for business purposes by business customers who are not approved by Copydan; (ii) if provisions are laid down in a Member State’s legislation under which, if producers, importers and/or distributors have nevertheless paid the levy (theoretically), the levy may be reimbursed in respect of memory cards in so far as they are used for business purposes, where (a) in practice, it is only the purchaser of the memory card who may obtain reimbursement, and (b) the purchaser of memory cards must submit an application for reimbursement of the levy to Copydan; (iii) if provisions are laid down in a Member State’s legislation under which producers, importers and/or distributors may sell memory cards to other undertakings registered with the organisation responsible for administering the levy scheme, without paying the levy, where (a) Copydan is the organisation responsible for administering the levy scheme and (b) the registered undertakings have no knowledge of whether the memory cards have been sold to individuals or business customers?’