Johan Deckmyn and Vrijheidsfonds VZW v Helena Vandersteen and Others.
Date: 2014-09-03
14. It must be noted that the Court has consistently held that it follows from the need for uniform application of EU law and from the principle of equality that the terms of a provision of EU law which makes no express reference to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope must normally be given an autonomous and uniform interpretation throughout the European Union, having regard to the context of the provision and the objective pursued by the legislation in question (judgment in Padawan , C‑467/08, EU:C:2010:620, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited).
15. It is clear from that case-law that the concept of ‘parody’, which appears in a provision of a directive that does not contain any reference to national laws, must be regarded as an autonomous concept of EU law and interpreted uniformly throughout the European Union (see, to that effect, judgment in Padawan , EU:C:2010:620, paragraph 33).
16. That interpretation is not invalidated by the optional nature of the exception mentioned in Article 5(3)(k) of Directive 2001/29. An interpretation according to which Member States that have introduced that exception are free to determine the limits in an unharmonised manner, which may vary from one Member State to another, would be incompatible with the objective of that directive (see, to that effect, judgments in Padawan , EU:C:2010:620, paragraph 36, and ACI Adam and Others , C‑435/12, EU:C:2014:254, paragraph 49).
19. It should be noted that, since Directive 2001/29 gives no definition at all of the concept of parody, the meaning and scope of that term must, as the Court has consistently held, be determined by considering its usual meaning in everyday language, while also taking into account the context in which it occurs and the purposes of the rules of which it is part (see, to that effect, judgment in Diakité , C‑285/12, EU:C:2014:39, paragraph 27 and the case-law cited).
22. That interpretation is not called into question by the context of Article 5(3)(k) of Directive 2001/29, which lays down an exception to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 of that directive and must, therefore, be interpreted strictly (see, to that effect, judgment in ACI Adam and Others , EU:C:2014:254, paragraph 23).
23. The interpretation of the concept of parody must, in any event, enable the effectiveness of the exception thereby established to be safeguarded and its purpose to be observed (see, to that effect, judgment in Football Association Premier League and Others , C‑403/08 and C‑429/08, EU:C:2011:631, paragraph 163).
26. In addition, as stated in recital 31 in the preamble to Directive 2001/29, the exceptions to the rights set out in Articles 2 and 3 of that directive, which are provided for under Article 5 thereof, seek to achieve a ‘fair balance’ between, in particular, the rights and interests of authors on the one hand, and the rights of users of protected subject-matter on the other (see, to that effect, judgments in Padawan , EU:C:2010:620, paragraph 43, and Painer , C‑145/10, EU:C:2011:798, paragraph 132).
28. In order to determine whether, in a particular case, the application of the exception for parody within the meaning of Article 5(3)(k) of Directive 2001/29 preserves that fair balance, all the circumstances of the case must be taken into account.