Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 83/2 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.4.2003

preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Stichting ter Exploitatie van Naburige Rechten
(SENA) and Nederlandse Omroep Stichting (NOS), on the
interpretation of Article 8(2) of Council Directive 92/100/
EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right
and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of
intellectual property (OJ 1992 L 346, p. 61), the Court
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),
President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, V. Skouris, F. Macken
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate
General; M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 6 February 2003, in which it has ruled:

1. _The concept of equitable remuneration in Article 8(2) of_
_Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on_
_rental right and lending right and on certain rights related_
_to copyright in the field of intellectual property must be_
_interpreted uniformly in all the Member States and applied_
_by each Member State; it is for each Member State to_
_determine, in its own territory, the most appropriate criteria_
_for assuring, within the limits imposed by Community law_
_and Directive 92/100 in particular, adherence to that_
_Community concept._

2. _Article 8(2) of Directive 92/100 does not preclude a model_
_for calculating what constitutes equitable remuneration for_
_performing artists and phonogram producers that operates by_
_reference to variable and fixed factors, such as the number of_
_hours of phonograms broadcast, the viewing and listening_
_densities achieved by the radio and television broadcasters_
_represented by the broadcast organisation, the tariffs fixed by_
_agreement in the field of performance rights and broadcast_
_rights in respect of musical works protected by copyright, the_
_tariffs set by the public broadcast organisations in the_
_Member States bordering on the Member State concerned,_
_and the amounts paid by commercial stations, provided that_
_that model is such as to enable a proper balance to be_
_achieved between the interests of performing artists and_
_producers in obtaining remuneration for the broadcast of a_
_particular phonogram, and the interests of third parties in_
_being able to broadcast the phonogram on terms that are_
_reasonable, and that it does not contravene any principle of_
_Community law._

( [1] ) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.

**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT**

**(Fifth Chamber)**

**of 13 February 2003**

**in Case C-458/00: Commission of the European Communi-**
**ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg** ( [1] )

_**(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —**_
_**Article 7(2) and (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 —**_
_**Classification of the purposeof a shipment of waste (recovery**_
_**or disposal) — Incinerated waste — Point R1 of Annex II B**_
_**to Directive 75/442/EEC — Concept of use principally as a**_
_**fuel or other means to generate energy)**_

(2003/C 83/03)

_(Language of the case: French)_

_(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published_
_in the European Court Reports)_

In Case C-458/00, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: H. Støvlbaek and J. Adda) v Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg (Agent: J. Faltz), supported by Republic of Austria
(Agent: C. Pesendorfer): Application for a declaration that by
raising unjustified objections to certain shipments of waste to
another Member State to be used principally as a fuel, in
breach of Article 7(2) and (4) of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control
of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European
Community (OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1), and of Article 1(f) in
conjunction with point R1 of Annex II B to Council Directive
75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39),
as amended by Commission Decision 96/350/EC of 24 May
1996 (OJ 1996 L 135, p. 32), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 6 and 7 of
that Regulation and under Article 1(f) in conjunction with
point R1 of Annex II B to that Directive, the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann
and S. von Bahr, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 13 February 2003, in which it:

1. _Dismisses the application;_

2. _Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay_
_the costs;_

3. _Orders the Republic of Austria to bear its own costs._

( [1] ) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.