Case C-202/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof ’s Gravenhage (Netherlands) lodged on 30 April 2012 — Innoweb B.V. v Wegener ICT Media B.V., Wegener Mediaventions B.V.
Date: 2012-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet site, access to information, copyright, database








C_2012243EN.01000202.xml










11.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/2





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof ’s Gravenhage (Netherlands) lodged on 30 April 2012 — Innoweb B.V. v Wegener ICT Media B.V., Wegener Mediaventions B.V.
(Case C-202/12)
2012/C 243/03
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof ’s Gravenhage (Netherlands)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Innoweb B.V.
Defendant: 






 


Wegener ICT Media B.V.,










 


Wegener Mediaventions B.V.





Questions referred







1.


Is Article 7(1) of the Directive (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the whole or a qualitatively or quantitatively substantial part of the contents of a database offered on a website (on line) is re-utilised (made available) by a third party if that third party makes it possible for the public to search the whole contents of the database or a substantial part thereof in real time with the aid of a dedicated meta search engine provided by that third party, by means of a query entered by a user in “translated” form into the search engine of the website on which the database is offered?










2.


If not, is the situation different if, after receiving the results of the query, the third party sends to or displays for each user a very small part of the contents of the database in the format of his own website?










3.


Is it relevant to the answers to Questions 1 and 2 that the third party undertakes those activities continuously and, with the aid of its search engine, carries out daily a total of 100 000 queries received from users in “translated” form and makes available the results thereof to various users in a manner such as that described above?










4.


Is Article 7(5) of the Directive to be interpreted as meaning that the repeated and systematic re-utilisation of insubstantial parts of the contents of the database which conflicts with normal exploitation or unreasonably prejudices the legitimate interests of the maker of the database is not permissible, or is it sufficient for there to be repeated or systematic re-utilisation?










5.


If repeated and systematic re-utilisation is a requirement,






(a)


what does ‘systematic’ mean?










(b)


Is re-utilisation systematic when an automated system is used?










(c)


Is it relevant that a dedicated meta search engine is used in the manner described above?














6.


Is Article 7(5) of the Directive to be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition for which it provides does not apply if a third party repeatedly makes available to individual users of a meta search engine belonging to that third party only insubstantial parts of the contents of the database in response to each query?










7.


If so, does that also apply if the cumulative effect of the repeated re-utilisation of those insubstantial parts is that a substantial part of the contents of the database is made available to the individual users together?










8.


Is Article 7(5) of the Directive to be interpreted as meaning that, if conduct which has not been approved and which is such that, as a result of the cumulative effect of re-utilisation, the whole or a substantial part of the contents of a protected database is made available to the public, the requirements of that provision are satisfied, or must it also be claimed and proved that those acts conflict with the normal exploitation of the database or unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the maker of the database?










9.


Is it assumed that the investment of the maker of the database is seriously prejudiced in the event of the aforementioned conduct?






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