Source: http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2016/04/21/cjeu-rules-moral-damages-copyright-infringement/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:54:49+00:00

Document:
This CJEU decision stems from legal proceedings brought in Spain by Mr. Liffers, the director, screenwriter and producer of the audiovisual work entitled Dos patrias, Cuba y la noche, against a production company and a television channel which had respectively produced and aired a documentary on child prostitution in Cuba that included passages of the original audiovisual work.
The Spanish courts considered, both at first instance and on appeal, that Mr. Liffers’ intellectual property rights in his audiovisual work had been infringed, causing damage that had to be redressed. At first instance, the defendants were ordered to pay 3,370 Euros (the amount that the court deemed the defendants should have paid had they requested a licence) plus 10,000 Euros for moral damages. Madrid Court of Appeal upheld the material damages award (although it reduced the amount), but it set aside, in its entirety, the moral damages award on the grounds that the method chosen by the plaintiff for calculating material damages ruled out the possibility of requesting additional compensation for moral damages. Mr. Liffers lodged an appeal with the Spanish Supreme Court on the grounds that the Appeal Court had erred in making this interpretation of the functioning of the compensatory criteria established in the law.
a) The negative economic consequences, including lost profits which the injured party has suffered and any profits made by the infringer due to the unlawful use. Moral prejudice shall afford entitlement to indemnification even where there is no evidence of economic prejudice. The amount of the indemnification shall be determined according to the circumstances of the infringement, the seriousness of the harm done and the extent of unlawful dissemination of the work.
b) The amount of royalties or fees which would have been due if the infringer had requested authorisation to use the intellectual property right in question.
In those circumstances, the Spanish Supreme Court made a reference for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU concerning whether Art. 13.1 of Directive 2004/48 should be interpreted as meaning that the party injured by an intellectual property infringement who claims damages for pecuniary loss calculated pursuant to Art. 13.2, paragraph 2, b) cannot also claim moral damages, as provided in Art. 13.1, paragraph 2, a).
The CJEU’s solution to this issue is, let it be said, dictated by common sense. EU law cannot solely be interpreted in light of its wording; it is also necessary to consider the context and objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part. In that regard, an interpretation of Art. 13 in light of the Directive and CJEU case-law precludes the mere acceptance of the damages incompatibility hypothesis where the hypothetical royalty method is selected.
Furthermore, Art. 13.1 of the Directive begins by stating that the damages must be appropriate to the “actual prejudice suffered”, and so if the injured party has sustained moral damages, they must also be redressed, regardless of the method chosen for calculating material damages.
In light of all this, the CJEU considered that Art. 13.1 of Directive 2004/48/EC must be interpreted as permitting an injured party who claims compensation for material damage calculated in accordance with paragraph b) of that provision (the hypothetical royalty criterion) to also claim compensation for moral damages.

References: CJEU 
 CJEU 
 Art. 13
 Art. 13
 Art. 13
 Art. 13
 CJEU 
 Art. 13
 CJEU 
 Art. 13