Case C-203/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court dated 24 May 2002, in the case of 1) The British Horseracing Board Limited, 2) The Jockey Club and 3) Weatherbys Group Limited against William Hill Organization Limited
Date: 2002-07-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to information, copyright, data protection, database, exchange of information, interpretation of the law

C 180/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.7.2002

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal
(England and Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that
court dated 24 May 2002, in the case of 1) The British
Horseracing Board Limited, 2) The Jockey Club and
3) Weatherbys Group Limited against William Hill Organ-
ization Limited

(Case C-203/02)

(2002/C 180/23)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal
(England and Wales) (Civil Division) dated 24 May 2002,
which was received at the Court Registry on 31 May 2002, for
a preliminary ruling in the case of 1) The British Horseracing
Board Limited, 2) The Jockey Club and 3) Weatherbys Group
Limited against William Hill Organization Limited, on the
following questions:

(1) May either of the expressions:

(a)

‘substantial part of the contents of the database’; or

(b)

‘insubstantial parts of the contents of the database’

in Article 7 of the Directive (1) include works, data or
other materials derived from the database but which do
not have the same systematic or methodical arrangement
of and individual accessibility to be found in the database?

(2) What is meant by ‘obtaining’

in Article 7(1) of the
Directive? In particular, are the facts and matters in
paragraphs 24-31 above capable of amounting to such
obtaining?

(3)

Is ‘verification’ in Article 7(1) of the Directive limited to
ensuring from time to time that information contained in
a database is or remains correct?

(4) What is meant in Article 7(1) of the Directive, by the

expressions:

(a)

(b)

‘a substantial part, evaluated qualitatively ... of the
contents of that database’? and

‘a substantial part, evaluated quantitatively ... of the
contents of that database’?

(5) What is meant in Article 7(5) of the Directive, by the

expression ‘insubstantial parts of the database’?

(6)

In particular, in each case:

(7)

(8)

Is ‘extraction’ in Article 7 of the Directive limited to the
transfer of the contents of the database directly from the
database to another medium, or does it also include the
transfer of works, data or other materials, which are
derived indirectly from the database, without having
direct access to the database?

Is ‘re-utilisation’ in Article 7 of the Directive limited to
the making available to the public of the contents of the
database directly from the database, or does it also include
the making available to the public of works, data or other
materials which are derived indirectly from the database,
without having direct access to the database?

(9)

Is ‘re-utilisation’ in Article 7 of the Directive limited to
the first making available to the public of the contents of
the database?

(10) In Article 7(5) of the Directive what is meant by ‘acts
which conflict with a normal exploitation of that database
or unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the
maker of the database’? In particular, are the facts and
matters in paragraphs 40-47 above in the context of the
facts and matters in paragraphs 32-35 above capable of
amounting to such acts?

(11) Does Article 10(3) of the Directive mean that, whenever
there is a ‘substantial change’
to the contents of a
database, qualifying the resulting database for its own
term of protection,
the resulting database must be
considered to be a new, separate database, including for
the purposes of Article 7(5)?

(1) Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases. OJ L 77,
27.3.1996, p. 20.

Action brought on 4 June 2002 by the Commission of the
European Communities against the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-210/02)

(2002/C 180/24)

(a)

does ‘substantial’ mean something more than ‘insig-
nificant’ and, if so, what?

(b) does ‘insubstantial’ part simply mean that it is not

‘substantial’?

An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 4 June 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities, represented by Thomas Cusack,
acting as agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.