Case C-545/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 4 December 2007 — Apis-Hristovich EOOD v Lakorda AD
Date: 2007-12-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: data protection, database, intellectual property, interpretation of the law

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/35

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski
lodged on 4 December 2007 —
gradski sad (Bulgaria)

Apis-Hristovich EOOD v Lakorda AD

(Case C-545/07)

(2008/C 51/57)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: Apis-Hristovich EOOD

Defendant: Lakorda AD

Questions referred

links and editorial text and these elements are also found in
the database of the person who has committed the alleged
infringement? In the carrying out of this assessment, are the
two
various original organisational
opposing databases relevant?

structures of

the

5. When determining whether extraction has taken place, is the
computer program/the system for database management
material if it is not part of the database?

6. Since, according to Directive 96/9/EC and the case-law of the
Court of Justice of the European Communities, ‘a substantial
part of the database from a quantitative and qualitative point
of view’ is linked to substantial investment in the obtaining,
verification or presentation of a database: how are these
concepts to be interpreted in relation to legislative measures,
and measures having individual application, which have been
adopted by executive State bodies and are publicly accessible,
to their official translations and to case-law?

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

1. How are the terms ‘permanent

transfer’ and ‘temporary
transfer’ to be interpreted and to be delimited in relation to
each other for the purpose of:

— determining whether extraction within the meaning of
Article 7(2)(a) of Directive 96/9/EC (1) from a database
accessible by electronic means has taken place,

— at what point in time is it to be assumed that extraction
within the meaning of Article 7(2)(a) of Directive
96/9/EC from a database accessible by electronic means
has taken place,

Action brought on 7 December 2007 — Commission of
the European Communities v Republic of Poland

(Case C-547/07)

(2008/C 51/58)

Language of the case: Polish

— what is the significance, for the assessment of extraction,
of the fact that the content of a database extracted in this
way has served to create a new and amended database?

Parties

2. Which criterion is to be applied in interpreting the concept
‘extraction of a substantial part, evaluated quantitatively’
if
the databases are divided into separate subgroups and are
used in these subgroups, which are independent commercial
products? Is the size of the databases in the entire commer-
cial product or the size of the databases in the relevant
subgroup to be used as the criterion?

3. In interpreting the concept

‘a substantial part, evaluated
qualitatively’, is the fact that a certain type of data allegedly
extracted was obtained by the database maker from a source
which is not generally accessible, so that it was possible to
procure the data only by extracting them from the databases
of that very database maker, to be used as a criterion?

4. What criteria are to be applied when determining whether
extraction from a database accessible by electronic means
has taken place? Can it be regarded as an indication that
extraction has taken place if the maker's database has a par-
ticular structure, notes, references, commands, fields, hyper-

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: D. Recchia and K. Herrmann, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

— by failing to classify as special protection areas (SPAs) for
birds all areas which, on the application of ornithological
criteria, appear to be the most appropriate for the conserva-
tion of bird species, the Republic of Poland has failed to
fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive
79/409/EEC (1) of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild
birds;

— order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.