Case C-516/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Spiegel Online GmbH v Volker Beck (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Copyright and related rights — Directive 2001/29/EC — Information Society — Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights — Article 5(3) — Exceptions and limitations — Scope — Article 5(3)(c) and (d) — Reporting of current events — Quotations — Use of hyperlinks — Lawfully making available to the public — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 11 — Freedom of expression and of information)
Date: 2019-07-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet site, access to information, approximation of laws, copyright, disclosure of information, freedom of the press, information society, mass media, reprography, right to information








C_2019319EN.01000701.xml










23.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/7






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Spiegel Online GmbH v Volker Beck
(Case C-516/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Information Society - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights - Article 5(3) - Exceptions and limitations - Scope - Article 5(3)(c) and (d) - Reporting of current events - Quotations - Use of hyperlinks - Lawfully making available to the public - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 11 - Freedom of expression and of information)
(2019/C 319/06)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Spiegel Online GmbH

Defendant: Volker Beck

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 5(3)(c), second case, and (d) of 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 must be interpreted as not constituting measures of full harmonisation of the scope of the exceptions or limitations which they contain.










2.


Freedom of information and freedom of the press, enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, are not capable of justifying, beyond the exceptions or limitations provided for in Article 5(2) and (3) of Directive 2001/29, a derogation from the author’s exclusive rights of reproduction and of communication to the public, referred to in Article 2(a) and Article 3(1) of that directive respectively.










3.


In striking the balance which is incumbent on a national court between the exclusive rights of the author referred to in Article 2(a) and in Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 on the one hand, and, on the other, the rights of the users of protected subject matter referred to in Article 5(3)(c), second case, and (d) of that directive, the latter of which derogate from the former, a national court must, having regard to all the circumstances of the case before it, rely on an interpretation of those provisions which, whilst consistent with their wording and safeguarding their effectiveness, fully adheres to the fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










4.


Article 5(3)(c), second case, of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as precluding a national rule restricting the application of the exception or limitation provided for in that provision in cases where it is not reasonably possible to make a prior request for authorisation with a view to the use of a protected work for the purposes of reporting current events.










5.


Article 5(3)(d) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘quotations’, referred to in that provision, covers a reference made by means of a hyperlink to a file which can be downloaded independently.










6.


Article 5(3)(d) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as meaning that a work has already been lawfully made available to the public where that work, in its specific form, was previously made available to the public with the rightholder’s authorisation or in accordance with a non-contractual licence or statutory authorisation.






(1)  OJ C 392, 20.11.2017.