Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 November 2004 in Case C-203/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)): The British Horseracing Board Ltd and Others v William Hill Organization Ltd (Directive 96/9/EC — Legal protection of databases — Sui generis right — Obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents of a database — (In)substantial part of the contents of a database — Extraction and re-utilisation — Normal exploitation — Unreasonable prejudice to the legitimate interests of the maker — Horseracing database — Lists of races — Betting)
Date: 2005-01-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to information, copyright, data protection, database, exchange of information, interpretation of the law

C 6/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.1.2005

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 9 November 2004

was created and during its operation. The resources used for verifi-
cation during the stage of creation of materials which are subse-
quently collected in a database do not fall within that definition.

The resources used to draw up a list of horses in a race and to
carry out checks in that connection do not constitute investment in
the obtaining and verification of the contents of the database in
which that list appears.

in Case C-203/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)):
The British Horseracing Board Ltd and Others v William
Hill Organization Ltd (1)

(Directive 96/9/EC — Legal protection of databases — Sui
generis right — Obtaining, verification or presentation of
the contents of a database — (In)substantial part of the
contents of a database — Extraction and re-utilisation —
Normal exploitation — Unreasonable prejudice to the legiti-
mate interests of the maker — Horseracing database — Lists
of races — Betting)

(2005/C 6/06)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-203/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales)
(Civil Division), made by decision of 24 May 2002, received at
the Court on 31 May 2002, in the proceedings between The
British Horseracing Board Ltd and Others and William Hill
Organization Ltd - the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of:
V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas
and K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur),
J.-
P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodri-
gues, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arza-
mendi and M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrators, for the Regis-
trar, has given a judgment on 9 November 2004, in which it
has ruled:

(Presidents of Chambers),

1. The expression ‘investment in … the obtaining … of the contents’
of a database in Article 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC of the Euro-
pean Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the
legal protection of databases must be understood to refer to the
resources used to seek out existing independent materials and
collect them in the database. It does not cover the resources used
for the creation of materials which make up the contents of a data-
base.

The expression ‘investment in … the … verification … of the
contents’ of a database in Article 7(1) of Directive 96/9 must be
understood to refer to the resources used, with a view to ensuring
the reliability of the information contained in that database, to
monitor the accuracy of the materials collected when the database

2. The terms ‘extraction’ and ‘re-utilisation’ as defined in Article 7 of
Directive 96/9 must be
any
unauthorised act of appropriation and distribution to the public of
the whole or a part of the contents of a database. Those terms do
not imply direct access to the database concerned.

interpreted

referring

as

to

The fact that the contents of a database were made accessible to
the public by its maker or with his consent does not affect the
right of the maker to prevent acts of extraction and/or re-utilisa-
tion of the whole or a substantial part of the contents of a data-
base.

3. The expression ‘substantial part, evaluated … quantitatively, of
the contents of [a] database’ in Article 7 of Directive 96/9 refers
to the volume of data extracted from the database and/or re-
utilised and must be assessed in relation to the total volume of the
contents of the database.

The expression ‘substantial part, evaluated qualitatively … of the
contents of [a] database’ refers to the scale of the investment in the
obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents of the subject
of the act of extraction and/or re-utilisation, regardless of whether
that subject represents a quantitatively substantial part of
the
general contents of the protected database.

Any part which does not fulfil the definition of a substantial part,
evaluated both quantitatively and qualitatively,
falls within the
definition of an insubstantial part of the contents of a database.

4. The prohibition laid down by Article 7(5) of Directive 96/9 refers
to unauthorised acts of extraction or re-utilisation the cumulative
effect of which is to reconstitute and/or make available to the
public, without the authorisation of the maker of the database, the
whole or a substantial part of the contents of that database and
thereby seriously prejudice the investment by the maker.

(1) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.