Case C-572/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 8 November 2013 — Hewlett-Packard Belgium SPRL v Reprobel SCRL
Date: 2013-11-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: copyright, indemnification, interpretation of the law, visual arts








C_2014024EN.01000602.xml










25.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/6





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 8 November 2013 — Hewlett-Packard Belgium SPRL v Reprobel SCRL
(Case C-572/13)
2014/C 24/11
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Hewlett-Packard Belgium SPRL

Defendant: Reprobel SCRL

Questions referred







1.


Must the term ‘fair compensation’ contained in Article 5(2)(a) and Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 (1) be interpreted differently depending on whether the reproduction on paper or a similar medium effected by the use of any kind of photographic technique or by some other process having similar effects is carried out by any user or by a natural person for private use and for ends that are neither directly nor indirectly commercial? If the answer is in the affirmative, on what criteria must that difference of interpretation be based?










2.


Must Article 5(2)(a) and Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 be interpreted as authorising the Member States to fix the fair compensation payable to rightholders in the form of:






1.


a lump-sum remunerative payment made by the manufacturer, importer or intra-Community acquirer of devices enabling protected works to be copied, at the time when such devices are put into circulation on national territory, the amount of which is calculated solely by reference to the speed at which the copier is capable of producing a number of copies per minute, without being otherwise linked to any harm suffered by rightholders;
and,










2.


a proportional remunerative payment, determined solely by means of a unit price multiplied by the number of copies produced, which varies depending on whether or not the person liable for payment has cooperated in the collection of that remuneration, which is payable by natural or legal persons making copies of works or, as the case may be, in lieu of those persons, by those who, for consideration or free of charge, make a reproduction device available to others.




If the reply to this question is in the negative, what are the relevant and consistent criteria that the Member States must apply in order to ensure that, in accordance with European Union law, the compensation may be regarded as fair and that a fair balance is maintained between the persons concerned?










3.


Must Article 5(2)(a) and Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 be interpreted as authorising the Member States to allocate half of the fair compensation due to rightholders to the publishers of works created by authors, the publishers being under no obligation whatsoever to ensure that the authors benefit, even indirectly, from some of the compensation of which they have been deprived?










4.


Must Article 5(2)(a) and Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 be interpreted as authorising the Member States to introduce an undifferentiated system for recovering the fair compensation due to rightholders in the form of a lump-sum and an amount for each copy made, which, implicitly but indisputably, covers in part the copying of sheet music and counterfeit reproductions?






(1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).