Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 24.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/12 |

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 31 October 2008 — Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de España (SGAE) v Padawan, S.L. and Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA), intervener

(Case C-467/08)

(2009/C 19/21)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de España (SGAE)

Defendant: Padawan, S.L.

Other party: Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA)

Questions referred

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 1. | Does the concept of ‘fair compensation’ in Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29[(1)](#ntr1-C_2009019EN.01001202-E0001) entail harmonisation, irrespective of the Member States' right to choose the system of collection which they deem appropriate for the purposes of giving effect to the right to fair compensation of intellectual property rightholders affected by the adoption of the private copying exception or limitation? |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 2. | Regardless of the system used by each Member State to calculate fair compensation, must that system ensure a fair balance between the persons affected, the intellectual property rightholders affected by the private copying exception, to whom the compensation is owed, on the one hand, and the persons directly or indirectly liable to pay the compensation, on the other, and is that balance determined by the reason for the fair compensation, which is to mitigate the harm arising from the private copying exception.? |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 3. | Where a Member State opts for a system of charging or levying in respect of digital reproduction equipment, devices and media, in accordance with the aim pursued by Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 and the context of that provision, must that charge (the fair compensation for private copying) necessarily be linked to the presumed use of those equipment and media for making reproductions covered by the private copying exception, with the result that the application of the charge would be justified where it may be presumed that the digital reproduction equipment, devices and media are to be used for private copying, but not otherwise? |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 4. | If a Member State adopts a private copying ‘levy’ system, is the indiscriminate application of that ‘levy’ to undertakings and professional persons who clearly purchase digital reproduction devices and media for purposes other than private copying compatible with the concept of ‘fair compensation’? |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 5. | Might the system adopted by the Spanish State of applying the private copying levy indiscriminately to all digital reproduction equipment, devices and media infringe Directive 2001/29, in so far as there is insufficient correlation between the fair compensation and the limitation of the private copying right justifying it, because to a large extent it is applied to different situations in which the limitation of rights justifying the compensation does not exist? |

---

[Top](#document1)