Case C-52/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Marknadsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 6 February 2007 — Kanal 5 Limited and TV 4 Aktiebolag v Föreningen Svenska Tonsättares Internationella Musikbyrå (STIM)
Date: 2007-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: copyright, dominant position, interpretation of the law, music, quasi-fiscal charge, television

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/17

Questions referred

1. Can Articles 82 and 86 of the EC Treaty be interpreted so as
also to include within their scope the activity of a legal
person which has the status of national representative of the
Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme (the International
Motorcycling Federation) and engages in economic activity as
described above by entering into sponsorship, advertising
and insurance contracts, in the context of the organisation of
motor sport events by it?

2. Should the answer be in the affirmative, is Article 49 of Law
2696/1999, which,
in relation to issue by the competent
national public authority (in the present case, the Ministry
for Public Order) of permission to organise a motor-vehicle
competition, gives the foregoing legal person the power to
the
provide a concurring opinion as to the holding of
competition without
to
that power being made subject
restrictions, obligations and review, compatible with those
provisions of the Treaty?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Marknadsdom-
stolen (Sweden) lodged on 6 February 2007 — Kanal 5
Limited and TV 4 Aktiebolag v Föreningen Svenska Tonsät-
tares Internationella Musikbyrå (STIM)

(Case C-52/07)

(2007/C 95/28)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Marknadsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Kanal 5 Limited and TV 4 Aktiebolag

nels' revenue from such television broadcasts directed at the
general public?

B. Is Article 82 EC to be interpreted as meaning that a practice
constitutes abuse of a dominant position where a copyright
management organisation which has a de facto monopoly
position in a Member State applies to or imposes in respect
of commercial television channels a remuneration model for
the right to make available music in television broadcasts
directed at the general public which involves the remunera-
tion being calculated as a proportion of the television chan-
nels' revenue from such television broadcasts directed at the
general public, where there is no clear link between the
revenue and what the copyright management organisation
makes available, that is, authorisation to perform copyright-
protected music, as is often the case with, for example, news
and sports broadcasts and where revenue increases as a
result of development of programme charts, investments in
technology and customised solutions?

C. Is the answer to Question A or B affected by the fact that it
to identify and quantify both the music

is possible
performed and viewing?

D. Is the answer to Question A or B affected by the fact that
the remuneration model (revenue model) is not applied in a
similar manner in respect of a public service company?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht
Bolzano (Italy)
lodged on 1 February 2007 — Othmar
Michaeler and Subito GmbH v Labour Inspectorate of the
Autonomous Province of Bolzano (now the employment
protection office) and the Autonomous Province of
Bolzano

(Case C-55/07)

(2007/C 95/29)

Language of the case: German

Defendant:
Musikbyrå (STIM)

Föreningen Svenska Tonsättares

Internationella

Referring court

Landesgericht Bolzano

Questions referred

A. Is Article 82 EC to be interpreted as meaning that a practice
constitutes abuse of a dominant position where a copyright
management organisation which has a de facto monopoly
position in a Member State applies to or imposes in respect
of commercial television channels a remuneration model for
the right to make available music in television broadcasts
directed at the general public which involves the remunera-
tion being calculated as a proportion of the television chan-

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Othmar Michaeler and Subito GmbH

Defendant: Labour Inspectorate of the Autonomous Province of
Bolzano (now the employment protection office) and the
Autonomous Province of Bolzano