Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace - Svaz softwarové ochrany v Ministerstvo kultury.
Date: 2010-12-22
24. It must be observed, firstly, that the contested decision in the main proceedings was adopted after the Czech Republic acceded to the Union, that it is prospective in its regulatory effect and not retrospective, and secondly, that the national court asks the Court for an interpretation of the European Union legislation applicable to the main proceedings (Case C‑64/06 Telefónica O2 Czech Republic  [2007] ECR I‑4887, paragraph 21).
25. Where the questions referred for preliminary ruling concern the interpretation of European Union law, the Court gives its ruling without, generally, having to look into the circumstances in which national courts were prompted to submit the questions and envisage applying the provision of European Union law which they have asked the Court to interpret (Case C‑85/95 Reisdorf  [1996] ECR I‑6257, paragraph 15, and Telefónica O2 Czech Republic , paragraph 22).
26. The matter would be different only if the provision of European Union law which was submitted for interpretation by the Court were not applicable to the facts of the main proceedings, which had occurred before the accession of a new Member State to the Union, or if such provision was manifestly incapable of applying ( Telefónica O2 Czech Republic , paragraph 23).
30. In those circumstances, that notion must be defined having regard to the wording and context of Article 1(2) of Directive 91/250, where the reference to it is to be found and in the light of both the overall objectives of that directive and international law (see, by analogy, Case C‑5/08 Infopaq International  [2009] ECR I‑6569, paragraph 32).
34. It follows that the source code and the object code of a computer program are forms of expression thereof which, consequently, are entitled to be protected by copyright as computer programs, by virtue of Article 1(2) of Directive 91/250.
35. Accordingly, the object of the protection conferred by that directive is the expression in any form of a computer program which permits reproduction in different computer languages, such as the source code and the object code.
37. Thus, the object of protection under Directive 91/250 includes the forms of expression of a computer program and the preparatory design work capable of leading, respectively, to the reproduction or the subsequent creation of such a program.
41. In those circumstances, the graphic user interface does not enable the reproduction of that computer program, but merely constitutes one element of that program by means of which users make use of the features of that program.
43. Nevertheless, even if the national court has limited its question to the interpretation of Article 1(2) of Directive 91/250, such a situation does not prevent the Court from providing the national court with all the elements of interpretation of European Union law which may enable it to rule on the case before it, whether or not reference is made thereto in the question referred (see, to that effect, Case C‑392/05 Alevizos  [2007] ECR I‑3505, paragraph 64 and the case-law cited).
44. In that regard, it is appropriate to ascertain whether the graphic user interface of a computer program can be protected by the ordinary law of copyright by virtue of Directive 2001/29.
45. The Court has held that copyright within the meaning of Directive 2001/29 is liable to apply only in relation to a subject-matter which is original in the sense that it is its author’s own intellectual creation (see, to that effect, with regard to Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29, Infopaq International , paragraphs 33 to 37).
46. Consequently, the graphic user interface can, as a work, be protected by copyright if it is its author’s own intellectual creation.
48. When making that assessment, the national court must take account, inter alia, of the specific arrangement or configuration of all the components which form part of the graphic user interface in order to determine which meet the criterion of originality. In that regard, that criterion cannot be met by components of the graphic user interface which are differentiated only by their technical function.
49. As the Advocate General states in Points 75 and 76 of his Opinion, where the expression of those components is dictated by their technical function, the criterion of originality is not met, since the different methods of implementing an idea are so limited that the idea and the expression become indissociable.
50. In such a situation, the components of a graphic user interface do not permit the author to express his creativity in an original manner and achieve a result which is an intellectual creation of that author.
54. It follows from the 23rd recital in the preamble to Directive 2001/29 that ‘communication to the public’ must be interpreted broadly. Such an interpretation is moreover essential to achieve the principal objective of that directive, which, as can be seen from its 9th and 10th recitals, is to establish a high level of protection of, inter alia, authors, allowing them to obtain an appropriate reward for the use of their works, in particular on the occasion of communication to the public (Case C‑306/05 SGAE  [2006] ECR I‑11519, paragraph 36).