1. This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 4(2) and 5(1) of Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs. (2)

1. It-talba għal deċiżjoni preliminari tirrigwarda l-interpretazzjoni tal-Artikoli 4(2) u 5(1) tad-Direttiva 2009/24/KE tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill, tat-23 ta’ April 2009, dwar il-protezzjoni legali ta’ programmi tal-kompjuter (2) .

2. The questions were referred in proceedings between UsedSoft GmbH, represented by Axel W. Bierbach, acting as administrator of that company, (3) and Oracle International Corp. (4) following UsedSoft’s marketing of ‘used’ Oracle software.

2. Id-domandi tressqu fil-kuntest ta’ kawża bejn UsedSoft GmbH, Axel W. Bierbach, fil-kwalità tiegħu ta’ kuratur ta’ falliment ta’ din il-kumpannija (3) u Oracle International Corp. (4) wara l-kummerċjalizzazzjoni minn UsedSoft ta’ softwer “użat” ta’ Oracle.

I – Legal context

I – Il-kuntest ġuridiku

A – International law

A – Id-dritt internazzjonali

3. The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) adopted the WIPO Copyright Treaty in Geneva on 20 December 1996. That treaty was approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2000/278/EC of 16 March 2000. (5)

3. L-Organizzazzjoni Dinjija dwar il-Proprjetà Intellettwali (WIPO) adottat f’Genève, fl-20 ta’ Diċembru 1996, it-Trattat tal-WIPO dwar id-drittijiet tal-awtur. Dan it-Trattat ġie approvat f’isem il-Komunità Ewropea bid-Deċiżjoni tal-Kunsill 2000/278/KE, tas-16 ta’ Marzu 2000 (5) .

4. Article 4 of that treaty provides that computer programs are protected as literary works within the meaning of Article 2 of the Berne Convention. The protection provided for applies to computer programs, whatever may be the mode or form of their expression.

4. Skont l-Artikolu 4 tal-imsemmi Trattat il-programmi tal-kompjuter huma protetti bħala xogħlijiet letterarji skont l-Artikolu 2 tal-Konvenzjoni ta’ Bern. Il-protezzjoni stabbilita tapplika għall-programmi tal-kompjuter, indipendentement mill-mod jew mill-għamla tal-espressjoni tagħhom.

5. Article 6 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty, entitled ‘Right of Distribution’ provides:

5. L-Artikolu 6 tat-Trattat tal-WIPO dwar id-drittijiet tal-awtur, intitolat “Dritt ta’ distribuzzjoni”, jipprovdi:

‘(1) Authors of literary and artistic works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorising the making available to the public of the original and copies of their works through sale or other transfer of ownership.

“1) Awturi ta’ xogħlijiet letterarji u artistiċi għandhom igawdu d-dritt esklużiv fuq l-awtorizzazzjoni li jagħmlu disponibbli għall-pubbliku x-xogħol oriġinali tagħhom jew kopji ta’ dan ix-xogħol permezz ta’ bejgħ jew trasferiment ieħor tal-proprjetà.

(2) Nothing in this Treaty shall affect the freedom of Contracting Parties to determine the conditions, if any, under which the exhaustion of the right in paragraph (1) applies after the first sale or other transfer of ownership of the original or a copy of the work with the authorisation of the author.’

2) Dan it-Trattat ma għandux jaffetwa l-libertà tal-Partijiet Kontraenti li jiddeterminaw, jekk iridu, kondizzjonijiet għall-applikazzjoni ta’ l-eżawriment tad-dritt imsemmi fil-paragrafu 1 wara l-ewwel bejgħ ta’ jew trasferiment ieħor tal-proprjetà fix-xogħol oriġinali jew f’kopja tax-xogħol bl-awtorizzazzjoni ta’ l-awtur.”

6. The Joint Declarations on the WIPO Copyright Treaty states, with regard to Articles 6 and 7:

6. Fid-dikjarazzjonijiet komuni dwar it-Trattat tal-WIPO dwar id-drittijiet tal-awtur, hemm iddikjarat dwar l-Artikoli 6 u 7:

‘As used in these Articles, the expressions “copies” and “original and copies”, being subject to the right of distribution and the right of rental under the said Articles, refer exclusively to fixed copies that can be put into circulation as tangible objects.’

“Kif użati f’dawn l-Artikoli, l-espressjonijiet “kopji” u “oriġinali u kopji” bħala suġġetti għad-dritt ta’ distribuzzjoni u għad-dritt ta’ self b’renta taħt l-Artikoli msemmija, jirreferu esklużivament għal kopji ffissati li jkunu jistgħu jitqiegħdu fiċ-ċirkolazzjoni bħala oġġetti tanġibbli.”

B – European Union (‘EU’) law

B – Id-dritt tal-Unjoni

1. Directive 2009/24

1. Id-Direttiva 2009/24

7. Directive 2009/24 codifies Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs. (6)

7. Id-Direttiva 2009/24 tikkodifika d-Direttiva tal-Kunsill 91/250/KEE, tal-14 ta’ Mejju 1991, dwar il-protezzjoni legali ta’ programmi tal-kompjuter (6) .

8. Article 1(1) of Directive 2009/24 provides that ‘Member States shall protect computer programs, by copyright, as literary works within the meaning of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works’.

8. Skont l-Artikolu 1(1) tad-Direttiva 2009/24, “l-Istati Membri għandhom jipproteġu programmi tal-kompjuter, bid-drittijiet tal-awtur, bħala xogħlijiet letterarji skont it-tifsira tal-Konvenzjoni ta’ Berna għall-Protezzjoni ta’ Xogħlijiet Letterarji u Artisitiċi”.

9. Article 4 of that directive, entitled ‘Restricted acts’, provides:

9. L-Artikolu 4 ta’ din id-Direttiva, intitolat “Atti ristretti”, jipprovdi:

‘1. Subject to the provisions of Articles 5 and 6, the exclusive rights of the rightholder within the meaning of Article 2 shall include the right to do or to authorise:

“1. Bla ħsara għad-dispożizzjonijiet tal-Artikoli 5 u 6, id-drittijiet esklussivi tad-detentur tad-drittijiet skont it-tifsira tal-Artikolu 2 għandhom jinkludu d-dritt li jagħmlu jew li jawtorizzaw:

(a) the permanent or temporary reproduction of a computer program by any means and in any form, in part or in whole; in so far as loading, displaying, running, transmission or storage of the computer program necessitate such reproduction, such acts shall be subject to authorisation by the rightholder;

a) ir-riproduzzjoni permanenti jew temporanja ta’ programm tal-kompjuter b’kull mezz u f’kull forma, f’parti jew kollha. In kwantu għat-tlugħ, wiri, tħaddim, trasmissjoni jew ħażna tal-programm tal-kompjuter ikun hemm bżonn din ir-riproduzzjoni, dawn l-atti għandhom ikunu soġġetti għall-awtorizzazzjoni mid-detentur tad-drittijiet;

(b) the translation, adaptation, arrangement and any other alteration of a computer program and the reproduction of the results thereof, without prejudice to the rights of the person who alters the program;

b) it-traduzzjoni, addattament, arranġament u kull alterazzjoni oħra ta’ programm tal-kompjuter u r-riproduzzjoni tar-riżultati tagħhom, mingħajr preġudizzju għad-drittijiet tal-persuna li tibdel il-programm;

(c) any form of distribution to the public, including the rental, of the original computer program or of copies thereof.

c) kull forma ta’ distribuzzjoni lill-pubbliku, inkluż il-kiri, tal-programm oriġinali tal-kompjuter jew kopji tiegħu;

2. The first sale in the [European Union] of a copy of a program by the rightholder or with his consent shall exhaust the distribution right within the [European Union] of that copy, with the exception of the right to control further rental of the program or a copy thereof.’

2. L-ewwel bejgħ [fl-Unjoni Ewropea] ta’ kopja ta’ programm mid-detentur tad-drittijiet jew bil-kunsens tiegħu għandu jeżawrixxi d-dritt ta’ distribuzzjoni fil-Komunità ta’ dik il-kopja, bl-eċċezzjoni tad-dritt biex jikkontrolla aktar il-kiri tal-programm jew kopja tiegħu.”

10. Article 5 of that directive, entitled ‘Exceptions to the restricted acts’, provides, in paragraph 1:

10. L-Artikolu 5(1) tal-imsemmija Direttiva, intitolat “Eċċezzjonijiet għall-atti ristretti”, jipprovdi:

‘In the absence of specific contractual provisions, the acts referred to in points (a) and (b) of Article 4(1) shall not require authorisation by the rightholder where they are necessary for the use of the computer program by the lawful acquirer in accordance with its intended purpose, including for error correction.’

“Fl-assenza ta’ dispożizzjonijiet speċifiċi kuntrattwali, l-atti msemmija fil-punti (a) u (b) tal-Artikolu 4(1) m’għandhomx jeħtieġu awtorizzazzjoni mid-detentur tad-drittijiet fejn ikunu meħtieġa għall-użu tal-programm tal-kompjuter minn min jiksbu legalment skont il-fini maħsub tiegħu, inkluża l-korrezzjoni ta’ żball.”

2. Directive 2001/29

2. Id-Direttiva 2001/29

11. Recitals 28 and 29 in the preamble to Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (7) provide:

11. Il-premessi 28 u 29 tad-Direttiva 2001/29/KE tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill, tat-22 ta’ Mejju 2001, dwar l-armonizzazzjoni ta’ ċerti aspetti ta’ drittijiet tal-awtur u drittijiet relatati fis-soċjetà tal-informazzjoni (7) jipprovdu:

‘(28) Copyright protection under this Directive includes the exclusive right to control distribution of the work incorporated in a tangible article. The first sale in the [European Union] of the original of a work or copies thereof by the rightholder or with his consent exhausts the right to control resale of that object in the [European Union]. This right should not be exhausted in respect of the original or of copies thereof sold by the rightholder or with his consent outside the [European Union]. Rental and lending rights for authors have been established in Directive 92/100/EEC. [(8) ] The distribution right provided for in this Directive is without prejudice to the provisions relating to the rental and lending rights contained in Chapter I of that Directive.

“(28) Il-protezzjoni tad-drittijiet ta’ l-awtur skond din id-Direttiva tinkludi d-dritt esklussiv biex tikkontrolla d-distribuzzjoni tax-xogħol inkorporat f’oġġett tanġibbli. L-ewwel bejgħ fil-Komunità ta’ l-oriġinal ta’ xogħol jew kopji tiegħu mid-detentur tad-drittijiet jew bil-kunsens tiegħu jeżawrixxi d-dritt li jikkontrolla bejgħ mill-ġdid ta’ dak l-oġġett fil-Komunità. Dan id-dritt m’għandux jiġi eżawrit rigward l-oriġinal jew il-kopji tiegħu mibjugħa mid-detentur jew bil-kunsens tiegħu barra mill-Komunità. Drittijiet għall-awturi rigward kiri u self ġew stabbiliti fid-Direttiva 92/100/KEE. [(8) ].Id-dritt ta’ distribuzzjoni li hemm provdut dwaru f’din id-Direttiva huwa mingħajr preġudizzju għad-disposizzjonijiet relatati mad-drittijiet ta’ kiri u self li hemm fil-Kapitolu I ta’ dik id-Direttiva.

(29) The question of exhaustion does not arise in the case of services and online services in particular. This also applies with regard to a material copy of a work or other subject-matter made by a user of such a service with the consent of the rightholder. Therefore, the same applies to rental and lending of the original and copies of works or other subject-matter which are services by nature. Unlike CD-ROM or CD-I, where the intellectual property is incorporated in a material medium, namely an item of goods, every online service is in fact an act which should be subject to authorisation where the copyright or related right so provides.’

(29) Il-kwistjoni ta’ eżawriment ma tqumx fil-każ ta’ servizzi u servizzi on-line b’mod partikolari. Din tapplika wkoll rigward kopja materjali ta’ xogħol jew suġġett magħmul minn utent ta’ servizz bħal dan bil-kunsens tad-detentur tad-drittijiet. Għalhekk, l-istess japplika għall-kiri jew self ta’ l-oriġinal u kopji ta’ xogħolijiet jew suġġett ieħor li huma servizzi fin-natura tagħhom. Differenti minn CD-ROM jew CD-I, fejn proprjetà intellettwali hija inkorporta fil-medium tal-materjal, jiġifieri suġġett minn oġġetti, kull servizz on-line huwa fil-fatt att li għandu jkun regolat mill-awtorizzazzjoni fejn id-drittijiet ta’ l-awtur jew drittijiet relatati jipprovdu hekk.”

12. Article 3 of Directive 2001/29, entitled ‘Right of communication to the public of works and right of making available to the public other subject-matter’, provides:

12. L-Artikolu 3 tad-Direttiva 2001/29, intitolat “Id-dritt ta’ komunikazzjoni lill-pubbliku ta’ xogħolijiet u d-dritt li jagħmlu disponibbli għall-pubbliku suġġett ieħor”, jipprovdi li:

‘1. Member States shall provide authors with the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit any communication to the public of their works, by wire or wireless means, including the making available to the public of their works in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.

“L-Istati Membri għandhom jipprovdu lill-awturi bid-dritt esklussiv li jawtorizzaw jew jipprojbixxu kull komunikazzjoni lill-pubbliku tax-xogħlijiet tagħhom, bil-fili jew mezzi mingħajr fili, inklużi li jagħmlu disponibbli lill-pubbliku x-xogħlijiet tagħhom b’mod li membri tal-pubbliku jistgħu jkollhom aċċess għalihom minn post u f’ħin magħżul individwalment minnhom.

…

[...]

3. The rights referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not be exhausted by any act of communication to the public or making available to the public as set out in this Article.’

3. Id-drittijiet imsemmija fil-paragrafi 1 u 2 m’għandhomx jiġu eżawriti bl-ebda att ta’ komunikazzjoni lill-pubbliku jew li jagħmilhom disponibbli għall-pubbliku kif stipulat f’dan l-Artikolu.”

13. Article 4 of that directive, entitled ‘Distribution right’, provides:

13. Skont l-Artikolu 4 ta’ din id-direttiva, intitolat “Dritt ta’ Distribuzzjoni”:

‘1. Member States shall provide for authors, in respect of the original of their works or of copies thereof, the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit any form of distribution to the public by sale or otherwise.

“1. L-Istati Membri għandhom jipprovdu lill-awturi, rigward l-oriġinal tax-xogħolijiet tagħhom jew tal-kopji tagħhom, id-dritt esklużiv li jawtorizzaw jew jipprojbixxu kull forma ta’ distribuzzjoni lill-pubbliku b’bejgħ jew mod ieħor.

2. The distribution right shall not be exhausted within the [European Union] in respect of the original or copies of the work, except where the first sale or other transfer of ownership in the [European Union] of that object is made by the rightholder or with his consent.’

2. Id-dritt ta’ distribuzzjoni [fl-Unjoni] m’għandux jiġi eżawrit rigward l-oriġinal jew kopji tax-xogħol, bla ħsara fejn l-ewwel bejgħ jew trasferiment ieħor ta’ [proprjetà] [fl-Unjoni] ta’ dak l-oġġett isir mid-detentur jew bil-kunsens tiegħu.”

C – National law

C – Id-dritt nazzjonali

14. Paragraphs 69c and 69d of the Law on copyright and related rights (Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte) of 9 September 1965, (9) in the version applicable at the material time (‘the UrhG’), transpose into national law, in the case of the former, Article 4 of Directive 2009/24 and Article 3 of Directive 2001/29, and, in the case of the latter, Article 5 of Directive 2009/24.

14. L-Artikoli 69c u 69d tal-Liġi dwar id-drittijiet tal-awtur u d-drittijiet relatati (Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte), tad-9 ta’ Settembru 1965 (9), fil-verżjoni applikabbli meta seħħew il-fatti fil-kawża prinċipali (iktar ’il quddiem l-“UrhG”), jittrasponu fid-dritt intern, fir-rigward tal-ewwel, l-Artikolu 4 tad-Direttiva 2009/24 kif ukoll l-Artikolu 3 tad-Direttiva 2001/29, u fir-rigward tat-tieni, l-Artikolu 5 tad-Direttiva 2009/24.

15. Paragraph 69c of the UrhG states:

15. L-Artikolu 69c tal-UrhG jipprovdi:

‘The rightholder shall have the exclusive right to do or to authorise:

“It-titulari tad-dritt għandu d-dritt esklużiv li jwettaq jew li jawtorizza:

1. the permanent or temporary reproduction of a computer program by any means and in any form, in part or in whole. In so far as loading, displaying, running, transmission or storage of the computer program necessitate such reproduction, such acts shall be subject to authorisation by the rightholder;

1. ir-riproduzzjoni permanenti jew temporanja ta’ programm tal-kompjuter, totalment jew parzjalment, bi kwalunkwe mezz u forma. Sa fejn il-ikkargar, il-wiri, it-tħaddim, it-trażmissjoni jew il-ħażna tal-programm tal-kompjuter jeħtieġu tali riproduzzjoni, dawn l-atti għandhom ikunu suġġetti għall-awtorizzazzjoni mit-titulari;

2. the translation, adaptation, arrangement and any other alteration of a computer program and the reproduction of the results thereof. The rights of the person who alters the program shall be reserved;

2. it-traduzzjoni, l-addattament, l-arranġament u kwalunkwe bidla oħra ta’ programm tal-kompjuter u r-riproduzzjoni tar-riżultati tagħhom. Id-drittijiet tal-persuna li tibdel il-programm huma rriżervati;

3. any form of distribution to the public, including the rental, of the original computer program or of copies thereof. If a copy of a computer program is distributed by sale in the territory [of the European Union] or of another State which is party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area [of 2 May 1992 (10) ] with the rightholder’s authorisation, the right to distribute that copy, except for the rental right, is exhausted;

3. kull forma ta’ distribuzzjoni, inkluż il-kiri, lill-pubbliku tal-programm oriġinali tal-kompjuter jew ta’ kopji tiegħu. Jekk kopja ta’ programm tal-kompjuter tiġi ddistribwita permezz ta’ bejgħ fit-territorju [tal-Unjoni] jew ta’ Stat ieħor kontraenti tal-Ftehim dwar iż-Żona Ekonomika Ewropea [tat-2 ta’ Mejju 1992 (10) ] bl-awtorizzazzjoni tat-titulari, id-dritt ta’ distribuzzjoni ta’ din il-kopja, bl-eċċezzjoni tad-dritt tal-kiri, huwa eżawrit;

4. any communication to the public of a computer program, by wire or wireless means, including the making available to the public of that program in such a way that members of the public may access it from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.’

4. kull komunikazzjoni lill-pubbliku ta’ programm tal-kompjuter, bil-fili jew mingħajr fili, inkluż it-tqegħid għad-dispożizzjoni lill-pubbliku ta’ dan il-programm b’mod li membri tal-pubbliku jistgħu jkollhom aċċess għalihom minn post u f’ħin magħżul individwalment minnhom.”

16. Paragraph 69d(1) of the UrhG provides:

16. L-Artikolu 69d(1) tal-UrhG jipprovdi li:

‘In the absence of specific contractual provisions, the acts referred to in Paragraph 69c(1) and (2) shall not require authorisation by the rightholder where they are necessary for the use of the computer program by any person authorised to use a copy of the program in accordance with its intended purpose, including for error correction.’

“Fl-assenza ta’ dispożizzjonijiet speċifiċi kuntrattwali, l-atti msemmija fil-punti (1) u (2) tal-Artikolu 69c ma humiex suġġetti għall-awtorizzazzjoni mit-titulari tad-drittijiet fejn ikunu meħtieġa għall-użu tal-programm tal-kompjuter minn min huwa awtorizzat juża kopja tal-programm skont il-finalità tiegħu, inkluża l-korrezzjoni ta’ żbalji.”

II – Facts and main proceedings

II – Il-fatti u l-proċedura fil-kawża prinċipali

17. Oracle develops and markets computer software. It is the proprietor of the exclusive copyright user rights in those programs and of the German and Community ‘Oracle’ word marks, which are registered, inter alia, for computer software.

17. Oracle tiżviluppa u tiddistribwixxi softwer tal-informatika. Hija t-titulari tad-drittijiet tal-awtur ta’ użu esklużiv ta’ dawn il-programmi kif ukoll tat-trade marks verbali Ġermaniżi u Komunitarji “Oracle” li huma rreġistrati, fost oħrajn, għal softwer tal-informatika.

18. In 85% of cases, Oracle distributes its software by download from the internet. The customer downloads the software to his computer direct from Oracle’s website. The programs are items of ‘client-server’ software. The user right in those programs includes the right to store the software permanently on a server and to allow a number of users to access it by downloading the software to the main memory of their workstation. On the basis of a software maintenance agreement, updated versions of the software (updates) and programs for correcting faults (patches) can be downloaded from Oracle’s website.

18. Oracle tiddistribwixxi s-softwer tagħha, f’85 % tal-każijiet, permezz ta’ tniżżil minn fuq l-internet. Il-klijent iniżżel is-softwer direttament fuq il-kompjuter tiegħu, minn fuq is-sit internet ta’ Oracle. Il-programmi huma softwer li jiffunzjona skont il-modalità “klijent/server”. Id-dritt ta’ użu li jikkonċernahom jinkludi d-dritt li s-softwer jinħażen b’mod permanenti fuq server u li jippermetti lil ċertu numru ta’ utenti jaċċedu għalih billi jniżżluh fuq memorja ċentrali tal-workstation tagħhom. Fil-kuntest ta’ kuntratt ta’ manutenzjoni, verżjonijiet aġġornati tas-softwer (updates) u tal-programmi li jippermettu li jiġu kkoreġuti żbalji (patches) ikunu jistgħu jitniżżlu minn fuq is-sit internet ta’ Oracle.

19. Oracle’s licence agreements include the following provision, under the heading ‘Grant of rights’:

19. Il-kuntratti ta’ liċenzji ta’ Oracle jinkludu, taħt it-titolu “Dritt konċess”, il-klawżola li ġejja:

‘With the payment for services you receive, exclusively for your internal business purposes and for an unlimited period, a non-exclusive, non-transferable user right, free of charge, in respect of everything which Oracle develops and makes available to you on the basis of this agreement.’

“Il-pagament tas-servizzi jagħtik id-dritt ta’ użu għal żmien indeterminat, mhux esklużiv, mhux trasferibbli u gratuwitu, irriżervat għal użu professjonali intern, tal-prodotti u servizzi kollha li Oracle tiżviluppa u tqiegħed għad-dispożizzjoni tiegħek abbażi ta’ dan il-kuntratt.”

20. In October 2005, UsedSoft, which trades in ‘used’ software licences, offered ‘already used’ Oracle licences, stating that they were current in the sense that the maintenance agreement concluded between the initial licence holder and Oracle was still in force and that the legality of the sale was confirmed by a notarised certificate.

20. UsedSoft, li tikkumerċjalizza liċenzji ta’ softwer “użat”, ipproponiet, fix-xahar ta’ Ottubru 2005, liċenzji ta’ Oracle “diġà użati”, billi indikat li dawn kienu aġġornati, fis-sens li l-kuntratt ta’ manutenzjoni sottoskritt minn min akkwista l-liċenzja inizjalment mingħand Oracle kien għadu validu u li l-legalità tal-bejgħ kienet ġiet ikkonfermata permezz ta’ ċertifikat notarili.

21. UsedSoft’s customers, who are not yet in possession of the Oracle software concerned, download the software directly from Oracle’s website after acquiring the ‘used’ licences. Customers who already have the software and go on to purchase licences for additional users download the software to the main memory of the workstations of those additional users.

21. Il-klijenti ta’ UsedSoft, li kien għad ma għandhomx is-softwer ikkonċernat ta’ Oracle, kienu jniżżlu, wara li jkunu akkwistaw liċenzja “użata”, dan is-softwer direttament minn fuq is-sit internet ta’ Oracle. Il-klijenti li diġà kellhom l-imsemmi softwer u li kienu xtraw liċenzji addizzjonali għal utenti supplimentari, kienu jniżżlu s-softwer għal fuq il-memorja ċentrali tal-workstations ta’ dawk l-utenti l-oħra.

22. Oracle sought and obtained an injunction from the Landgericht München I (Regional Court, Munich I) to prevent the continuation of those practices. Following the dismissal of the appeal lodged by UsedSoft against that decision, UsedSoft lodged an appeal on a point of law with the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court) (Germany).

22. Wara li Oracle kienet ippreżentat kawża quddiem il-Landgericht München I sabiex twaqqaf dawn il-prattiki, din il-qorti laqgħet it-talba tagħha. Peress li l-appell ippreżentat minn UsedSoft kontra din id-deċiżjoni kien ġie miċħud, hija sussegwentement ippreżentat appell fuq punti ta’ liġi quddiem il-Bundesgerichtshof (il-Ġermanja).

III – Questions referred for a preliminary ruling

III – Id-domandi preliminari

23. The Bundesgerichtshof decided to stay the proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:

23. Il-Bundesgerichtshof iddeċidiet li tissospendi l-proċeduri quddiemha u li tagħmel lill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja d-domandi preliminari li ġejjin:

‘(1) Is the person who can rely on exhaustion of the right to distribute a copy of a computer program a “lawful acquirer” within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2009/24 …?

“1) Il-persuna li tista’ tinvoka eżawriment tad-dritt ta’ distribuzzjoni tal-kopja ta’ programm ta’ kompjuter hija “persuna li tikseb legalment” skont l-Artikolu 5(1) tad-Direttiva 2009/24 [...]?

(2) If the reply to the first question is in the affirmative: is the right to distribute a copy of a computer program exhausted in accordance with Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24 … when the acquirer has made the copy with the rightholder’s consent by downloading the program from the internet onto a data carrier?

2) Fil-każ ta’ risposta fl-affermattiv għall-ewwel domanda: id-dritt ta’ distribuzzjoni tal-kopja ta’ programm tal-kompjuter hija eżawrita, fis-sens tal-Artikolu 4(2) tad-Direttiva 2009/24 [...], meta l-persuna li tikseb tkun wettqet il-kopja bl-awtorizzazzjoni tal-proprjetarju tad-dritt, billi tniżżel il-programm fuq sostenn informatiku mill-internet?

(3) If the reply to the second question is also in the affirmative: can a person who has acquired a “used” software licence for generating a program copy as “lawful acquirer” under Article 5(1) and Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24 … also rely on exhaustion of the right to distribute the copy of the computer program made by the first acquirer with the rightholder’s consent by downloading the program from the internet onto a data carrier if the first acquirer has erased his program copy or no longer uses it?’

3) Fil-każ li anki t-tieni domanda tingħata risposta fl-affermattiv: il-persuna li tikseb liċenzja ta’ softwer “użata”, tista’ wkoll tinvoka, għat-twettiq ta’ kopja ta’ programm bħala “persuna li tikseb legalment”, skont l-Artikolu 5(1) u l-Artikolu 4(2) tad-Direttiva 2009/24/KE […], l-eżawriment tad-dritt ta’ distribuzzjoni tal-kopja ta’ programm ta’ kompjuter li l-ewwel persuna li tikseb legalment, bl-awtorizzazzjoni tal-proprjetarju tad-dritt, tkun wettqet billi tniżżel il-programm fuq sostenn informatiku mill-internet, jekk l-ewwel persuna li tikseb legalment tkun neħħiet il-kopja tagħha jew ma tużahiex iktar?”

IV – My analysis

IV – Analiżi tiegħi

A – Preliminary remarks

A – L-osservazzjonijiet preliminari

24. The referring court takes it as read that, by downloading computer programs from Oracle’s website or from a storage medium to the main memory of additional computers, UsedSoft’s customers perform acts of reproduction within the meaning of Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 2009/24 which infringe Oracle’s exclusive right of reproduction. Moreover, since Oracle’s licensing conditions state that the user right is ‘non-transferable’, the Bundesgerichtshof points out that Oracle’s customers cannot lawfully transfer the right of reproduction to UsedSoft, which, consequently, cannot transfer it to its own customers.

24. Il-qorti tar-rinviju tassumi li l-klijenti ta’ UsedSoft, billi jniżżlu l-programmi tal-kompjuter mis-sit internet ta’ Oracle jew minn sostenn informatiku għal fuq il-memorja ċentrali ta’ kompjuters addizzjonali, iwettqu atti ta’ riproduzzjoni, fis-sens tal-Artikolu 4(1)(a) tad-Direttiva 2009/24, li jimpinġu fuq id-dritt esklużiv ta’ riproduzzjoni ta’ Oracle. Barra minn hekk, peress li l-kundizzjonijiet tal-liċenzja ta’ Oracle jispeċifikaw li d-dritt ta’ użu “mhux trasferibbli”, il-Bundesgerichtshof tirrileva li l-klijenti ta’ Oracle ma setgħux validament jittrasferixxu d-dritt ta’ riproduzzjoni lil UsedSoft li, konsegwentement, ma setgħetx tittrasferixxihom lill-klijenti tagħha stess.

25. The referring court concludes from this that the resolution of the dispute depends on whether UsedSoft’s customers may rely on Paragraph 69d(1) of the UrhG, which transposes Article 5(1) of Directive 2009/24 into German law by exempting from the requirement of authorisation by the rightholder acts of reproduction which are necessary to enable the lawful acquirer to use the computer program in accordance with its intended purpose.

25. Minn dan il-qorti tar-rinviju kkonkludiet li s-soluzzjoni tal-kawża tiddependi fuq il-kwistjoni dwar jekk il-klijenti ta’ UsedSoft jistgħux jinvokaw l-Artikolu 69d(1) tal-UrhG, li jittrasponi l-Artikolu 5(1) tad-Direttiva 2009/24 fid-dritt Ġermaniż, filwaqt li jeżenta mill-awtorizzazzjoni tat-titulari tad-dritt ir-riproduzzjoni neċessarja sabiex tippermetti lil min jiksbu legalment juża l-programm ta’ kompjuter b’mod konformi mal-finalità tiegħu.

26. According to the referring court, that question is broken down into three sub-questions, the first relating to the status of ‘lawful acquirer’, within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2009/24, of the person who can rely on exhaustion of the distribution right, the second to whether the distribution right is exhausted where a copy of the program is downloaded from the internet with the rightholder’s consent, and the third to whether the acquirer of a used licence can rely on such exhaustion where the initial acquirer has erased his copy or no longer uses it.

26. Skont il-qorti tar-rinviju, din id-domanda tinqasam fi tliet sottodomandi dwar, l-ewwel waħda, il-kwalità ta’ “min jiksbu legalment” fis-sens tal-Artikolu 5(1) tad-Direttiva 2009/24, tal-persuna li tista’ tinvoka l-eżawriment tad-dritt distribuzzjoni, it-tieni, il-kwistjoni dwar jekk hemmx l-eżawriment tad-dritt ta’ distribuzzjoni f’każ li kopja tal-programm titniżżel mill-internet bl-awtorizzazzjoni tat-titulari tad-dritt, u t-tielet, dwar il-possibbiltà għal min ikun kiseb liċenzja użata li jinvoka dan l-eżawriment meta l-ewwel akkwirent ikun ħassar il-kopja tiegħu jew ma baqax jużaha.

27. Although the referring court has asked the second question only in the event of an affirmative reply to the first question, I consider that it should be answered first. After all, before examining whether the person who can rely on exhaustion of the distribution right can be regarded as a ‘lawful acquirer’ within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2009/24, it must be ascertained whether the downloading of Oracle programs by a person resident in the territory of the European Union has the effect of exhausting the right to distribute those programs within the ‘Community’, pursuant to Article 4(2) of that directive. In my view, that question, which concerns whether or not the principle of exhaustion applies to internet downloads, comes first.

27. Għalkemm il-qorti tar-rinviju għamlet it-tieni domanda biss f’każ ta’ risposta affermattiva għall-ewwel domanda, jien tal-fehma li għandha l-ewwel nett tingħata risposta għal din id-domanda. Fil-fatt, qabel ma neżaminaw jekk il-persuna li tista’ tinvoka l-eżawriment tad-dritt ta’ distribuzzjoni tistax tiġi kklassifikata bħala “min jikseb legalment” fis-sens tal-Artikolu 5(1) tad-Direttiva 2009/24, għad irid jiġi rrilevat jekk it-tniżżil tal-programmi ta’ Oracle minn persuna residenti fit-territorju tal-Unjoni għandux l-effett li jwassal għall-eżawriment “Komunitarju” tad-dritt ta’ distribuzzjoni ta’ dawn il-programmi, skont l-Artikolu 4(2) ta’ din id-direttiva. Din id-domanda, li tittratta l-kwistjoni dwar jekk il-prinċipju tal-eżawriment japplikax għat-tniżżil mill-internet, għandha titqies domanda preliminari.

28. Next, I shall carry out a joint examination of the first and third questions, which have to do with whether the acquirer of a used licence may, on the basis of Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24, in conjunction with Article 5(1) of that directive, rely on exhaustion of the right to distribute the copy of the computer program downloaded by the first acquirer in order, as a lawful acquirer, to make a new copy of the program where the first acquirer has erased his copy or no longer uses it.

28. Sussegwentement, ser neżamina l-ewwel u t-tielet domandi flimkien, li jikkonċernaw il-kwistjoni dwar jekk min jikseb liċenzja użata jistax, abbażi tal-Artikolu 4(2) tad-Direttiva 2009/24, flimkien mal-Artikolu 5(1) ta’ din id-direttiva, jinvoka l-eżawriment tad-dritt ta’ distribuzzjoni tal-kopja tal-programm tal-kompjuter imniżżel mill-ewwel akkwirent sabiex iwettaq, bħala akkwirent legali, kopja ġdida tal-programm fil-każ fejn l-ewwel akkwirent ikun ħassar il-kopja tiegħu jew ma jibqax jużaha.

B – The second question

B – Fuq it-tieni domanda

29. The referring court wishes to ascertain, in essence, whether the right to distribute a copy of a computer program is exhausted within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24 where the acquirer has made the copy, with the rightholder’s consent, by downloading the program from the internet onto a data carrier?

29. Il-qorti tar-rinviju essenzjalment tixtieq issir taf jekk id-dritt ta’ distribuzzjoni tal-kopja ta’ programm ta’ kompjuter huwiex eżawrit, fis-sens tal-Artikolu 4(2) tad-Direttiva 2009/24, meta l-akkwirent iwettaq il-kopja, bl-awtorizzazzjoni tad-detentur tad-dritt, billi jniżżel il-programm fuq sostenn informatiku mill-internet.

1. Observations of the parties to the main proceedings, the governments and the Commission

1. L-osservazzjonijiet tal-partijiet fil-kawża prinċipali, tal-Gvernijiet u tal-Kummissjoni Ewropea

30. UsedSoft argues primarily that the wording of Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24 allows the exhaustion rule to be applied to online software transfers, since, on the one hand, the expression ‘copy of a program’ may be understood as referring to the process of allowing the acquirer to record the program and, on the other hand, the expression ‘first sale’ does not require ownership to be transferred through the delivery of a data carrier, what matters being rather the achievement of the ultimate economic objective of the operation, which is to make the program permanently usable. Submitting that, whether a data carrier is delivered or not, a sale is characterised by the making available of a user right for an unspecified period in return for a one-off fee, UsedSoft maintains that it is clear from the wording of Directive 2009/24 that the distribution right is exhausted once the Oracle customer makes the copy, with the rightholder’s consent, by downloading the program onto a data carrier.

30. UsedSoft ssostni prinċipalment li l-kliem tal-Artikolu 4(2) tad-Direttiva 2009/24 jippermetti li tiġi applikata r-regola tal-eżawriment għal trasferimenti online ta’ softwer, peress li, min-naħa, il-frażi “kopja ta’ programm” tista’ tinftiehem bħala proċess li jippermetti lill-akkwirent jirreġistra l-programm u li, min-naħa l-oħra, il-frażi l-“ewwel bejgħ” ma timplikax it-trasferiment tal-proprjetà fil-forma ta’ distribuzzjoni ta’ sostenn informatiku, peress li dak li jgħodd huwa pjuttost l-għan ekonomiku finali tat-tranżazzjoni, li huwa l-programm ikun jista’ jintuża b’mod permanenti. Filwaqt li ssostni li l-bejgħ ser ikun ikkaratterizzat, indipendentement mid-distribuzzjoni ta’sostenn informatiku, mit-tqegħid għad-dispożizzjoni ta’ dritt ta’ użu għal żmien indeterminat u kontra ħlas ta’ somma f’daqqa, UsedSoft targumenta li mill-kliem tad-Direttiva 2009/24 jirriżulta li l-eżawriment tad-dritt ta’ distribuzzjoni jseħħ fil-mument li l-klijent ta’ Oracle iwettaq kopja bil-kunsens tat-titulari tad-dritt billi jniżżel il-programm fuq sostenn informatiku.

31. UsedSoft adds that that interpretation, based on the wording of Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24, is supported by the objective of the exhaustion rule, which is to strike a balance between the economic interest of the author in exploiting his work and the interest of the free movement of goods and services. Taking the view that, where software is made permanently available in return for payment of a fee, the rightholder is able to exploit his creative work commercially by selling the protected item, UsedSoft submits that that author cannot decide whether or not to apply the principle of exhaustion by choosing between two methods of distribution which are none the less strictly equivalent from an economic point of view. Such a situation would lead to a monopoly on distribution which the exhaustion rule is specifically intended to prevent. Even if the transaction is be regarded as a provision of services, the exhaustion principle should continue to be applicable, since the freedom to provide services is also one of the fundamental principles of the European Union.

31. UsedSoft issostni wkoll li din l-interpretazzjoni, ibbażata fuq il-kliem tal-Artikolu 4(2) tad-Direttiva 2009/24, hija sostnuta mill-għan tar-regola tal-eżawriment, li huwa li jinstab bilanċ bejn l-interessi ekonomiċi tal-awtur fir-rigward tal-isfruttament tax-xogħol tiegħu u l-interess tal-moviment liberu tal-merkanzija u tas-servizzi. Peress li hija tqis li f’kaz ta’ tqegħid għad-dispożizzjoni permanenti ta’ softwer permezz ta’ ħlas ta’ somma, it-titulari tad-dritt għandu il-possibbiltà jisfrutta kummerċjalment ix-xogħol kreattiv tiegħu bil-bejgħ tal-oġġett protett, UsedSoft tikkunsidra li dan l-awtur ma jistax jiddeċiedi jekk japplikax il-prinċipju tal-eżawriment billi jagħżel bejn żewġ modi ta’ distribuzzjoni li huma madankollu strettament ekwivalenti minn perspettiva ekonomika. Jekk dan ikun il-każ, jirriżulta monopolju ta’ distribuzzjoni li r-regola tal-eżawriment għandha proprju l-għan li tevita. Jekk jitqies li t-tranżazzjoni għandha tiġi kklassifikata bħala provvista ta’ servizzi, il-prinċipju tal-eżawriment jibqa’ applikabbli, peress li l-libertà li jiġu pprovduti servizzi hija wkoll parti mill-prinċipji fundamentali tal-Unjoni.

32. UsedSoft states that the Court held the exhaustion principle not to be applicable to forms of exploitation which are typically intangible, such as performing or broadcasting rights, not because they are intangible but because those rights give rise to the collection of a fee for each use and, therefore, the author’s economic interests are not satisfied by the first release into circulation.

32. UsedSoft tippreċiża li l-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja ċaħdet l-applikazzjoni tal-prinċipju tal-eżawriment għall-forom ta’ tranżazzjonijiet tipikament intanġibbli, bħad-drittijiet ta’ rappreżentazzjoni, ta’ eżekuzzjoni jew ta’ xandir, mhux minħabba n-natura intanġibbli tagħhom, iżda għaliex dawn id-drittijiet jagħtu lok għall-ħlas ta’ miżata għal kull użu u, konsegwentement, l-interessi ekonomiċi tal-awtur ma jiġux issoddisfatti bl-ewwel tqegħid għaċ-ċirkulazzjoni.

33. UsedSoft maintains that no argument to the contrary can be inferred from Article 3(3) of Directive 2001/29 or recital 29 in the preamble to that directive, which cover only the particular circumstance of services which are made available for ad hoc use the duration of which is limited to that of the connection to the author’s server. Unlike services made available for permanent use in return for payment of a one-off fee, services that are intended to be provided repeatedly for consideration do not enable the rightholder’s economic interests to be satisfied when they are provided for the first time.

33. UsedSoft issostni li ebda argument f’sens kuntrarju ma jista’ jinsilet mill-Artikolu 3(3) tad-Direttiva 2001/29 jew mill-premessa 29 ta’ din id-direttiva, li jindirizzaw biss il-każ speċjali ta’ tqegħid għad-dispożizzjoni ta’ servizzi għal użu ad hoc għal żmien limitat għall-konnessjoni mas-server tal-awtur. B’differenza għat-tqegħid għad-dispożizzjoni ta’ servizzi għal użu permanenti permezz ta’ ħlas ta’ somma f’daqqa, servizzi intiżi li jiġu pprovduti ripetutament bi ħlas ma jistgħux jissodisfaw l-interessi ekonomiċi tat-titulari tad-dritt meta jiġu pprovduti għall-ewwel darba.

34. Oracle considers that the downloading of copies of computer programs does not constitute a sale because the remuneration is not sought simply for the program download but is paid on the basis of the licensing agreement in return for the right of use conferred by that agreement. Moreover, where a maintenance agreement has been concluded, the first acquirer cannot resell the version initially downloaded but only a different, supplemented and updated version.

34. Oracle tqis li t-tniżżil ta’ kopji tal-programmi tal-kompjuter ma jikkostitwixxix bejgħ, peress li r-remunerazzjoni ma tintalabx għas-sempliċi tniżżil tal-programm, iżda titħallas abbażi tal-kuntratt tal-liċenzja, bħala korrispettiv għad-dritt ta’ użu mogħti b’dan il-kuntratt. Meta jiġi konkluż kuntratt ta’ manutenzjoni, l-ewwel akkwirent ma jistax ibigħ il-verżjoni li kien niżżel oriġinarjament, iżda biss verżjoni differenti, kompluta u aġġornata.

35. Referring to the case-law of the Court of Justice, in particular the judgment in British Horseracing Board and Others , (11) the Joint Declarations on the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee on the implementation and effects of Directive 91/250 of 10 April 2000, (12) Oracle goes on to say that the distribution right can be exhausted only where the ownership of a tangible object is transferred, which rules out the totally intangible operation of downloading. In that company’s submission, a ‘copy of a program’ within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24 can only be a material item of goods, that is to say, a ‘product’. That interpretation, it contends, is consistent with the meaning and purpose of the principle of exhaustion, the purpose of which is to ensure the free movement of physical copies which have previously been put into circulation with the rightholder’s consent, not to make fit for circulation copies which have been created by the user himself.

35. Filwaqt li tirreferi għall-ġurisprudenza tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja, b’mod partikolari għas-sentenza tad-9 ta’ Novembru 2004, The British Horseracing Board et (11), għad-dikjarazzjonijiet komuni dwar it-Trattat tal-WIPO dwar id-drittijiet tal-awtur kif ukoll għar-rapport tal-Kummissjoni lill-Kunsill, lill-Parlament Ewropew u lill-Kumitat Ekonomiku u Soċjali dwar l-implementazzjoni u l-effetti tad-Direttiva 91/250, tal-10 ta’ April 2000 (12), Oracle ssostni wkoll li jista’ jkun hemm eżawriment tad-dritt ta’ distribuzzjoni biss fil-każ ta’ trasferiment ta’ proprjetà ta’ oġġett tanġibbli, u dan jeskludi t-tranżazzjoni, totalment immaterjali, tat-tniżżil. Skont din il-kumpannija, “kopja ta’ programm”, fis-sens tal-Artikolu 4(2) tad-Direttiva 2009/24 tista’ biss tkun oġġett fiżiku, jiġifieri “prodott”. Dan il-kunċett huwa konformi mas-sens u mal-finalità tal-prinċipju tal-eżawriment, li għandu l-għan li jiżgura l-moviment liberu ta’ kopji fiżiċi li jkunu tqiegħdu fiċ-ċirkulazzjoni minn qabel bil-kunsens tat-titulari tad-drittijiet, u mhux li jirrendi adegwati għaċ-ċirkulazzjoni kopji li nħolqu mill-utent innifsu.

36. Oracle observes in any event that, even if a positive reply were to be given to that question, the exhaustion of the distribution right that would follow from the program download would not authorise the first acquirer to transfer the copy to another medium. It would only enable him to physically transfer the medium itself, which would require him, for example, to remove the disc onto which he has downloaded the program.

36. Oracle tosserva, fi kwalunkwe każ, li, anki jekk ikollha tingħata risposta fl-affermattiv għal din id-domanda, l-eżawriment tad-dritt ta’ distribuzzjoni li jirriżulta meta jitniżżel programm ma jawtorizzax lill-ewwel akkwirent jittrażmetti l-kopja għal lejn sostenn ieħor. Dan jippermettilu biss li jittrasferixxi materjalment is-sostenn innifsu, li jkun jeħtieġ, pereżempju, li huwa jneħħi d-diska li fuqha huwa jkun niżżel il-programm.

37. Oracle states that there is no need to draw a distinction depending on whether the computer program is obtained by acquiring a CD-ROM or by downloading it online, since, in both cases, a licensing agreement must be concluded before the copy of the program can be used.

37. Oracle tispjega li ma hemmx lok li ssir distinzjoni skont jekk il-programm ta’ kompjuter ikunx inkiseb bl-akkwiżizzjoni ta’ CD-ROM jew billi jitniżżel online peress li, fiż-żewġ każijiet, l-użu tal-kopja tal-programm tippreżumi l-konklużjoni ta’ kuntratt ta’ liċenzja.

38. The Spanish and French Governments, Ireland and the Italian Government submit that the right to distribute a computer program is exhausted only where the copy of that program has been put into circulation by being incorporated in a tangible medium. The French Government, Ireland and the Italian Government base that argument on the legislative context in the light of which Directive 2009/24 must be interpreted, in particular Directive 2001/29.

38. Il-Gvernijiet ta’ Spanja u ta’ Franza, l-Irlanda kif ukoll il-Gvern Taljan isostnu li d-dritt ta’ distribuzzjoni ta’ programm ta’ kompjuter ikun eżawrit biss meta l-kopja ta’ dak il-programm titqiegħed fiċ-ċirkulazzjoni b’mod tanġibbli. Il-Gvern Franċiż, l-Irlanda u l-Gvern Taljan jibbażaw ruħhom fuq il-qafas leġiżlattiv li fid-dawl tiegħu għandha tiġi interpretata d-Direttiva 2009/24, b’mod partikolari fuq id-Direttiva 2001/29.

39. Ireland further contends that, even if the licence granted by the rightholder were to be classified as a sale, the copies for which the licence was issued are not those which are downloaded or transferred by the sub-acquirers. It points out that the exhaustion rule, which has developed within the context of the free movement of goods, does not have the effect of exhausting the right of a patent holder to distribute consignments other than those which were marketed with his consent. Referring to the judgment in Pharmon , (13) Ireland takes the view that the situation in the present case is similar to that in which products are marketed on the basis of a compulsory licence. It adds that allowing licences to be exploited without the rightholder’s consent is likely to discourage innovation and adversely affects the legitimate interests of the author of the program.

39. L-Irlanda ssostni, barra minn hekk, li anki jekk il-liċenzja mogħtija mit-titulari tad-dritt għandha tiġi kklassifikata bħala bejgħ, il-kopji li fir-rigward tagħhom ingħatat il-liċenzja ma humiex dawk li jitniżżlu jew jinkisbu minn subakkwirent. Hija tfakkar li r-regola tal-eżawriment, li żviluppat fil-kuntest tal-moviment liberu tal-merkanzija, ma għandhiex l-effett li teżawrixxi d-dritt ta’ distribuzzjoni tat-titulari ta’ privattiva fir-rigward ta’ lottijiet oħra minbarra dawk li jkunu ġew ikkummerċjalizzati bil-kunsens tiegħu. Filwaqt li tirreferi għas-sentenza tad-9 ta’ Lulju 1985, Pharmon (13), l-Irlanda tqis li l-każ tal-kawża preżenti huwa simili għas-sitwazzjoni li fiha prodotti jkunu ġew ikkummerċjalizzati abbażi ta’ liċenzja obbligatorja. Hija żżid li l-awtorizzar tal-użu ta’ liċenzji mingħajr il-kunsens tat-titulari tad-dritt huwa ta’ natura li jiskoraġġixxi l-innovazzjoni u jippreġudika l-interessi leġittimi tal-awtur tal-programm.

40. The French Government adds to the arguments inferred from the legislative context in EU law a number of considerations based on international law and the case-law of the Court of Justice. (14) It argues that there can be no exhaustion in the case of downloading since this involves the offer of an online service by the intermediary, and states that the maintenance agreement clearly falls within the scope of the provision of services.

40. Il-Gvern Franċiż iżid mal-argumenti bbażati fuq il-kuntest leġiżlattiv fid-dritt tal-Unjoni numru ta’ kunsiderazzjonijiet ibbażati fuq id-dritt internazzjonali u fuq il-ġurisprudenza tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja (14) . Huwa jargumenta li ma jistax ikun hemm eżawriment f’każ ta’ tniżżil peress li hemm inkwistjoni offerta permezz ta’ servizz online u jsostni li l-kuntratt ta’ manutenzjoni huwa, evidentement, wieħed ta’ provvista ta’ servizzi.

41. The Italian Government, which considers that a distinction should be drawn between the status of owner of a copy of the software and the status of user authorised to use the software under a licence, argues that, in so far as the distribution right is irrelevant where an electronic copy of an item of software is transferred online, the limit represented by the exhaustion of the distribution right is inapplicable. It considers that any other approach would compromise the protection of the software under EU law.

41. Il-Gvern Taljan, li jqis li għandha ssir distinzjoni bejn l-istatus ta’ proprjetarju ta’ kopja tas-softwer u l-istatus ta’ utent li huwa awtorizzat juża s-softwer bis-saħħa ta’ liċenzja, jargumenta li, sa fejn, f’każ ta’ trasmissjoni online ta’ kopja elettronika ta’ softwer, id-dritt ta’ distribuzzjoni huwa irrilevanti, il-limitu rappreżentat mill-eżawriment tad-dritt ta’ distribuzzjoni huwa inapplikabbli. Huwa jikkunsidra li approċċ differenti jikkomprometti l-protezzjoni tas-softwer skont id-dritt tal-Unjoni.

42. The Commission, which points out that the dispute is concerned in essence with the question whether the resale of a computer program is authorised and whether the rightholder’s rights are exhausted where the computer program is made available for download from a server under conditions which limit the user’s right to transfer the program to a third party, considers that it follows not only from recital 28 in the preamble to Directive 2001/29 but also from Article 4 of that directive, read in conjunction with Article 8 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty, and from the Joint Declarations on that treaty, the transposal of which is one of the objectives of Directive 2001/29, that Article 4(1)(c) of Directive 2009/24, notwithstanding its wording, does not cover the distribution of a work not incorporated in a tangible article, which is covered only by Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29. However, Article 3(3) of that directive states that the right to make the work available to the public referred to in Article 3(1) of that directive is not exhausted, recital 29 in its preamble confirming, moreover, that the question of exhaustion does not arise in the case of services in general and online services in particular.

42. Il-Kummissjoni, li tfakkar li l-kawża tikkonċerna, essenzjalment, il-kwistjoni dwar jekk il-bejgħ mill-ġdid ta’ programm ta’ kompjuter huwiex awtorizzat u jekk id-drittijiet tat-titulari humiex eżawriti meta l-programm ta’ kompjuter jitqiegħed għad-dispożizzjoni sabiex jitniżżel minn fuq server b’kundizzjonijiet li jillimitaw id-drittijiet tal-utent li jittrażmetti l-programm lil oħrajn, tqis li jirriżulta mhux biss mill-premessa 28 tad-Direttiva 2001/29, iżda wkoll mill-Artikolu 4 ta’ din id-direttiva, moqri flimkien mal-Artikolu 8 tat-Trattat tal-WIPO dwar id-drittijiet tal-awtur, u mid-dikjarazzjonijiet komuni li jikkonċernaw dan it-Trattat, li t-traspożizzjoni tiegħu hija waħda mill-għanijiet tad-Direttiva 2001/29, li l-Artikolu 4(1)(c) tad-Direttiva 2009/24, minkejja l-kliem tiegħu, ma jkoprix id-distribuzzjoni ta’ xogħol mhux inkorporat f’oġġett materjali, li jkun kopert biss mill-Artikolu 3(1) tad-Direttiva 2001/29. Madankollu, l-Artikolu 3(3) ta’ din id-direttiva jipprovdi li d-dritt ta’ tqegħid għad-dispożizzjoni lill-pubbliku imsemmi fl-Artikolu 3(1) tal-imsemmija direttiva ma jiġix eżawrit, peress li l-premessa 29 tikkonferma, barra minn hekk, li l-kwistjoni tal-eżawriment ma tqumx fil-każ ta’ servizzi inġenerali u ta’ servizzi online b’mod partikolari.

2. My assessment

2. L-evalwazzjoni tiegħi

43. The aim of the principle of exhaustion laid down in German and American law, (15) is to strike a balance between the necessary protection of intellectual property rights, which notionally confer on their holders a monopoly on exploitation, and the requirements of the free movement of goods. That principle, which limits the exclusive right of the intellectual property rightholder to be the first to put into circulation the product covered by the right in question, is ‘the expression … of the legal notion … that [that] right … does not make it possible to prevent the distribution of an authentic product once it has been placed on the market’. (16)

43. Il-prinċipju tal-eżawriment, li joħroġ mid-dritt Ġermaniż u Amerikan (15), huwa intiż sabiex jintlaħaq bilanċ bejn il-protezzjoni neċessarja tad-drittijiet intellettwali, li jikkonferixxu fil-prinċipju lit-titulari tagħhom monopolju ta’ użu, u r-rekwiżiti tal-moviment liberu tal-merkanzija. Dan il-prinċipju, li jillimita d-dritt esklużiv tat-titulari tal-proprjetà intellettwali għall-ewwel tqegħid għaċ-ċirkulazzjoni tal-prodott kopert bid-dritt inkwistjoni, huwa “l-espressjoni […] tal-idea ġuridika [...] li [dan] id-dritt ma jippermettix li wieħed jipprekludi d-distribuzzjoni ta’ prodott awtentiku, ladarba dan ikun tqiegħed fis-suq” (16) .

44. The objective of creating an internal area without frontiers prompted the Court to incorporate that rule into the legal order of the European Union. In its judgment in Deutsche Grammophon , (17) it held that ‘it would be in conflict with the provisions prescribing the free movement of products within the common market for a manufacturer of sound recordings to exercise the exclusive right to distribute the protected articles, conferred upon him by the legislation of a Member State, in such a way as to prohibit the sale in that State of products placed on the market by him or with his consent in another Member State solely because such distribution did not occur within the territory of the first Member State’.

44. L-għan ta’ ħolqien ta’ żona mingħajr fruntieri interni wassal lill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja sabiex tintegra din ir-regola fl-ordinament ġuridiku tal-Unjoni. Fis-sentenza tagħha tat-8 ta’ Ġunju 1971, Deutsche Grammophon (17), hija ddikjarat li “l-eżerċizzju, minn manifattur ta’ sostenni tal-ħoss, tad-dritt esklużiv ta’ tqegħid għaċ-ċirkulazzjoni tal-oġġetti protetti li jirriżulta mil-leġiżlazzjoni ta’ Stat Membru, sabiex jipprojbixxi l-kummerċjalizzazzjoni f’dan l-Istat ta’ prodotti li jkunu tqiegħdu fis-suq minnu stess jew bil-kunsens tiegħu fi Stat Membru ieħor, għar-raġuni biss li dan it-tqegħid għaċ-ċirkulazzjoni ma kienx seħħ fit-territorju tal-ewwel Stat Membru, jikser ir-regoli li jipprevedu l-moviment liberu tal-prodotti fis-suq komuni” [traduzzjoni mhux uffiċjali].

45. Under the exhaustion rule, the intellectual property rightholder who has put goods into circulation in the territory of a Member State loses the right to rely on his monopoly on exploitation in order to oppose their importation into another Member State. That rule is justified, economically, by the consideration that the holder of parallel rights must not profit unduly from the exploitation of his right, which would be the case if he could benefit from the economic advantage conferred on him by that right every time an EU internal frontier is crossed.

45. Bis-saħħa tar-regola tal-eżawriment, it-titulari tad-drittijiet intellettwali li jqiegħed l-prodotti tiegħu għaċ-ċirkulazzjoni fit-territorju ta’ Stat Membru jitlef il-possibbiltà li jinvoka l-monopolju tiegħu ta’ użu sabiex jopponi l-importazzjoni tagħhom fi Stat Membru ieħor. Din ir-regola hija ġġustifikata, ekonomikament, mill-kunsiderazzjoni li t-titulari tad-drittijiet paralleli ma jistax jieħu profitt indebitu mill-użu tad-dritt tiegħu, li jkun il-każ jekk huwa jkun jista’ jibbenefika mill-vantaġġ ekonomiku li jingħatalu kull darba li hemm moviment lejn fruntiera interna fl-Unjoni.

46. The exhaustion principle, which has its origin in judge-made law, was adopted by the EU legislature, which has made reference to it in a number of directives, in particular those relating to trade marks, (18) databases, (19) plant variety rights, (20) rental and lending rights in respect of protected works, (21) copyright and related rights in the information society and computer programs. Although the Court’s extensive case-law in this area has fashioned the ‘doctrine of Community exhaustion’, which can be applied uniformly to all intellectual property rights, the fact remains that the conditions governing the application and scope of the rule may vary considerably depending on the particular characteristics of each intellectual property right in question and the particular provisions governing it.

46. Il-prinċipju ta’ eżawriment, li għandu oriġini ġudizzjarja, ġie adottat mil-leġiżlatur tal-Unjoni, li għamel riferiment għalih f’diversi direttivi, b’mod partikolari dwar it-trademarks (18), id-databases (19), il-varjetajiet tal-pjanti (20), id-dritt tal-kiri u ta’ xiri ta’ xogħlijiet protetti (21), id-drittijiet tal-awtur u drittijiet relatati fis-soċjetà tal-informazzjoni u programmi tal-kompjuter. Għalkemm il-ġurisprudenza abbondanti tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja f’dan il-qasam tifforma d-“duttrina tal-eżawriment Komunitarju”, li tista’ tiġi applikata b’mod uniformi għad-drittijiet kollha ta’ proprjetà intellettwali, il-fatt jibqa’ li l-kundizzjonijiet ta’ applikazzjoni u l-portata tar-regola jistgħu jvarjaw b’mod sinjifikattiv abbażi tal-karatteristiċi ta’ kull dritt ta’ proprjetà intellettwali inkwistjoni u tad-dispożizzjonijiet partikolari li jirregolawh.

47. With more specific regard to computer programs, the exhaustion rule is laid down in Article 4 of Directive 2009/24, which repeats the wording of Article 4 of Directive 91/250 but splits that article into two separate paragraphs.

47. Fir-rigward b’mod partikolari tal-programmi tal-kompjuter, ir-regola ta’ eżawriment hija stabbilita fl-Artikolu 4 tad-Direttiva 2009/24, li ttenni l-kliem tal-Artikolu 4 tad-Direttiva 91/250 filwaqt li taqsam dan l-Artikolu f’żewġ paragrafi distinti.

48. Whereas Article 4(1) of Directive 2009/24 singles out from the exclusive rights enjoyed by the author of the program the right of permanent or temporary reproduction, the right to alter the program and the right to do or to authorise ‘any form of distribution to the public, including the rental, of the original computer program or of copies thereof’, Article 4(2) of that directive states that exhaustion is to apply only to the right of distribution, with the exception of the ‘right to control further rental’. It is clear from those provisions that only the right of distribution is subject to exhaustion, not the right of reproduction or alteration. Moreover, although the right of distribution is broadly defined, only one form of distribution, sale, triggers the exhaustion rule, whereas, once that rule has been brought into play, its effects extend to any form of distribution, with the exception of rental.

48. Filwaqt li l-Artikolu 4(1) tad-Direttiva 2009/24 jiddistingwi minn fost id-drittijiet esklużivi tal-awtur tal-programm, id-dritt ta’ riproduzzjoni permanenti jew temporanja, id-dritt ta’ pproċessar u d-dritt li jwettaq jew jawtorizza “kull forma ta’ distribuzzjoni lill-pubbliku, inkluż il-kiri, tal-programm oriġinal tal-kompjuter jew kopji tiegħu”, l-Artikolu 4(2) ta’ din id-direttiva jippreċiża li l-eżawriment japplika biss għad-dritt ta’ distribuzzjoni, bl-eċċezzjoni tad-“dritt biex jikkontrolla aktar il-kiri [ulterjuri] tal-programm”. Minn dawn id-dispożizzjonijiet jirriżulta li huwa biss id-dritt ta’ distribuzzjoni li huwa suġġett għall-eżawriment, u mhux id-dritt ta’ riproduzzjoni jew ta’ pproċessar. Barra minn hekk, għalkemm id-dritt ta’ distribuzzjoni huwa ddefinit b’mod wiesa’, forma waħda biss ta’ distribuzzjoni, il-bejgħ, twassal għall-applikazzjoni tar-regola tal-eżawriment, filwaqt li, ladarba din ir-regola tkun daħlet fis-seħħ, l-effetti tagħha jestendu għal kull forma ta’ distribuzzjoni, bl-eċċezzjoni tal-kiri.

49. The question whether the exhaustion rule, as worded in Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24, is capable of encompassing the marketing of ‘used’ computer software downloaded from the internet has prompted considerable controversy in the Member States, especially in Germany, (22) which controversy is mirrored in the debate taking place in the United States with respect to the application of the ‘first sale doctrine’ in the digital environment. (23)

49. Il-mistoqsija dwar jekk ir-regola ta’ eżawriment, kif ifformulata fl-Artikolu 4(2) tad-Direttiva 2009/24, tistax tinkludi l-kummerċjalizzazzjoni ta’ softwer “użat” imniżżel mill-internet qajmet kontroversji importanti fost l-Istati Membri, b’mod partikolari fil-Ġermanja (22), liema kontroversja hija riflessa, fl-Istati Uniti, fid-diskussjonijiet dwar l-applikazzjoni tal-“first sale doctrine” fil-qasam diġitali (23) .

50. Since exhaustion is conditional on the first ‘sale of a copy of a computer program’ in the European Union by the rightholder or with his consent, it should be determined, first, whether that doctrine, which, since the adoption of Directive 2009/24, has prompted many questions, (24) must be interpreted uniformly.

50. Peress li l-eżawriment huwa suġġett għall-ewwel “bejgħ ta’ kopja ta’ programm tal-kompjuter” fl-Unjoni mit-titulari tad-dritt jew bil-kunsens tiegħu, għandu qabelxejn jiġi ddeterminat jekk dan il-kunċett li, fl-adozzjoni tad-Direttiva 2009/24, qajjem mistoqsijiet numerużi (24), għandux jiġi interpretat b’mod uniformi.

51. According to the Court’s settled case-law, the need for a uniform application of EU law and the principle of equality require 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 a uniform interpretation throughout the European Union. (25) Since Directive 2009/24 does not contain any reference to national laws with respect to the meaning to be ascribed to the expression ‘sale of a copy’, that expression must be regarded, for the purposes of applying that directive, as designating an autonomous concept of EU law which must be interpreted in a uniform manner in the territory of all the Member States, taking into account in particular its terms, the context in which it is used and the objectives pursued both by that directive and by international law. (26)

51. Skont il-ġurisprudenza stabbilita tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja, kemm mir-rekwiżit tal-applikazzjoni uniformi tal-liġi tal-Unjoni kif ukoll mill-prinċipju ta’ ugwaljanza jirriżulta li t-termini ta’ dispożizzjoni tal-liġi tal-Unjoni li ma tagħmel ebda riferiment speċifiku għal-liġi tal-Istati Membri sabiex tiddetermina t-tifsira u l-għan tagħha għandha normalment tingħata interpretazzjoni awtonoma u uniformi fl-Unjoni(25) . Peress li d-Direttiva 2009/24 ma tagħmel ebda riferiment għal-liġijiet nazzjonali fir-rigward tas-sinjifikat li għandu jingħata lill-frażi “bejgħ ta’ kopja”, din għandha titqies, għall-finijiet tal-applikazzjoni ta’ din id-direttiva, li tindika kunċett awtonomu tad-dritt tal-Unjoni, li għandu jiġi interpretat b’mod uniformi fit-territorju tal-Istati Membri kollha, filwaqt li jittieħdu inkunsiderazzjoni, b’mod partikolari, it-termini tagħha u l-kuntest li fih hija tintuża kif ukoll l-għanijiet mixtieqa kemm mid-Direttiva kif ukoll mid-dritt internazzjonali (26) .

52. It is clear from recitals 4 and 5 in the preamble to Directive 2009/24 that its objective is to remove differences between the laws of the Member States which adversely affect the internal market. Just as the Court held in Zino Davidoff and Levi Strauss (27) that the concept of consent, which constitutes the decisive factor in the extinction of the exclusive right, must be interpreted uniformly in order to attain the objective of the ‘same protection under the legal systems of all the Member States’, (28) so the view must be taken that the condition relating to the sale of a copy of a program must not vary as a function of differing interpretations in the various national legal systems.

52. Mill-premessi 4 u 5 tad-Direttiva 2009/24 jirriżulta li din għandha l-għan li telimina d-differenzi bejn il-leġiżlazzjonijiet tal-Istati Membri li jippreġudika b’mod sinjifikanti s-suq intern. Kif iddeċidiet il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja, fis-sentenza tagħha tal-20 ta’ Novembru 2001, Zino Davidoff u Levi Strauss (27), li l-kunċett ta’ kunsens, li jikkostitwixxi element deċiżiv tat-tmiem tad-dritt esklużiv, għandu jkun is-suġġett ta’ interpretazzjoni uniformi sabiex jintlaħaq l-għan tal-“istess protezzjoni skont is-sistemi legali tal-Istati Membri” (28), hekk ukoll għandu jiġi kkunsidrat li l-kundizzjoni dwar il-bejgħ ta’ programm ma għandhiex tvarja skont interpretazzjonijiet differenti fl-ordinamenti ġuridiċi nazzjonali differenti.

53. It must, therefore, be ascertained whether the concept of ‘sale of a copy of a program’ within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24 can be applied in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings.

53. Konsegwentement, għandu jiġi eżaminat jekk il-kunċett ta’ “bejgħ ta’ kopja ta’ programm tal-kompjuter”, fis-sens tal-Artikolu 4(2) tad-Direttiva 2009/24, jistax japplika għal ċirkustanzi bħal dawk fil-kawża prinċipali.

54. Oracle submits that the remuneration sought from the customer represents consideration not simply for downloading the program or making the object code available but for the user agreement conferred by the licensing agreement. Oracle adds that, in most cases, the customer has also concluded a maintenance agreement for updating the program and correcting errors which constitutes a contract for the provision of services. It infers from this that there is no sale within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24.

54. Oracle issostni li r-remunerazzjoni mitluba mingħand il-klijent ma hijiex sempliċement għat-tniżżil tal-programm u lanqas sabiex jingħata kodiċi, iżda bħala korrispettiv għall-kuntratt ta’ użu mogħti bil-kuntratt ta’ liċenzja. Oracle iżżid li, ħafna drabi, il-klijent jikkonkludi wkoll kuntratt ta’ manutenzjoni li jippermettilu jaġġorna l-programm u l-korrezzjoni ta’ żbalji, u dan jikkostitwixxi kuntratt ta’ provvista ta’ servizzi. Minn dan hija tikkonkludi li ma hemmx bejgħ fis-sens tal-Artikolu 4(2) tad-Direttiva 2009/24.

55. That analysis seems to me to be erroneous.

55. Din l-analiżi jidhirli li hija żbaljata.

56. In my view, it is clear that, under Directive 2009/24, the distinction between sale and rental is the ‘summa divisio’ on which both the application or otherwise of the exhaustion rule (29) and the scope of that rule depend. (30) Recital 12 in the preamble to that directive defines rental as being the making available for use, for a limited period of time and for profit-making purposes, of a computer program or a copy thereof. Conversely, a computer program or a copy of such a program must be regarded as being sold within the meaning of Article 4(2) of that directive where the transaction, however it may have been described by the parties, involves the transfer of ownership of a copy of the computer program, for an unlimited period of time, in return for the payment of a one-off fee. Moreover, that distinction is consistent with the case-law of the Court of Justice, which has held that exhaustion does not arise in the case of rental (31) but that it does in the case of transfer of ownership. (32)

56. Fil-fehma tiegħi, skont id-Direttiva 2009/24 jirriżulta b’mod ċar li d-distinzjoni bejn il-bejgħ u l-kiri hija s-“summa divisio” li minnha jiddependu kemm l-applikazzjoni jew le tar-regola tal-eżawriment (29) kif ukoll il-portata ta’ din ir-regola (30) . Il-premessa 12 ta’ din id-direttiva tiddefinixxi l-kiri bħala li tagħmel disponibbli għall-użu, għal perijodu limitat ta’ żmien u għal finijiet ta’ qligħ, programm ta’ kompjuter jew kopja tiegħu. A contrario , programm ta’ kompjuter jew ta’ kopja tiegħu għandu jitqies mibjugħ, fis-sens tal-Artikolu 4(2) ta’ din id-direttiva, meta, indipendentement mill-klassifikazzjoni li jagħtuha l-partijiet, it-tranżazzjoni hija kkaratterizzata mit-trasferiment tal-proprjetà ta’ kopja tal-programm tal-kompjuter, għal żmien indeterminat, bi ħlas ta’ somma f’daqqa. Din id-distinzjoni hija barra minn hekk ikkonfermata mill-ġurisprudenza tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja, li eskludiet l-eżawriment f’każ ta’ kiri (31), filwaqt li applikatu f’każ ta’ trasferiment tal-proprjetà (32) .

57. The issue of a licence allowing a copy of a computer program to be made available by download from the internet is a complex transaction which may involve both a contract for the provision of services relating in particular to the making available, implementation and maintenance of the computer program and a contract for the sale of the copy needed for the performance of those services. (33) The content of the authorisation to use the program which is granted in this way may vary.

57. Il-ħruġ ta’ liċenzja li tippermetti li t-tqegħid għad-dispożizzjoni ta’ kopja ta’ programm ta’ kompjuter permezz ta’ tniżżil mill-internet hija operazzjoni kumplessa, li tista’ tkopri kemm kuntratt ta’ provvista ta’ servizzi li jikkonċerna, b’mod partikolari, id-disponibbiltà, it-tħaddim u l-manutenzjoni ta’ programm tal-kompjuter, u kuntratt ta’ bejgħ tal-kopja meħtieġa għat-twettiq ta’ dawk is-servizzi (33) . Il-kontenut tal-awtorizzazzjoni għall-użu hekk mogħtija jista’ jvarja.

58. That right of use bears the hallmarks of rental where it has been conferred temporarily in return for the payment of a periodic fee and the supplier has not relinquished ownership of the copy of the computer program, which the rightholder must return to him. On the other hand, it appears to me to bear the hallmarks of sale where the customer secures permanent acquisition of the right to use the copy of the computer program, which the supplier relinquishes in return for a lump sum payment.

58. Dan id-dritt ta’ użu jippreżenta l-karatteristiċi tal-kiri meta jingħata b’mod temporanju, permezz ta’ ħlas perijodu ta’ miżata, u meta l-fornitur ma jkunx ċeda l-proprjetà tal-kopja tal-programm tal-kompjuter, li għandha tiġi restitwita lilu mit-titulari tad-dritt. Jidhirli, għall-kuntrarju, li jeżistu l-karatteristiċi ta’ bejgħ meta l-klijent jakkwista, b’mod definittiv, id-dritt li juża l-kopja tal-programm tal-kompjuter, li l-fornitur ċedielu bil-ħlas ta’ somma f’daqqa.

59. It is my contention that, taking into account the purpose of exhaustion, which is to limit the exclusivity conferred by the intellectual property right once the marketing operation has enabled the rightholder to realise the economic value of his right, the term ‘sale’ within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24 must be given a broad interpretation encompassing all forms of product marketing characterised by the grant of a right to use a copy of a computer program, for an unlimited period, in return for the payment of a one-off fee. An excessively restrictive interpretation of that term would undermine the effectiveness of that provision by divesting the exhaustion rule of all scope, since the marketing of computer software most commonly takes the form of user licences and suppliers would only need to call the agreement a ‘licence’ rather than a ‘sale’ in order to be able to circumvent that rule.

59. Jiena nqis, fil-fatt, li, fid-dawl tal-għan tal-eżawriment, li huwa li jiġi llimitat id-dritt ta’ esklużività tad-dritt ta’ proprjetà intellettwali meta t-tranżazzjoni ta’ kummerċ tkun ippermettiet lit-titulari tad-dritt jirrealizza l-valur ekonomiku tad-dritt tiegħu, it-terminu “bejgħ” fis-sens tal-Artikolu 4(2) tad-Direttiva 2009/24, għandu jingħata interpretazzjoni wiesgħa, li tinkludi l-forom kollha ta’ kummerċjalizzazzjoni ta’ prodott li huma kkaratterizzati mill-għoti ta’ dritt ta’ użu ta’ kopja tal-programm tal-kompjuter, għal żmien indeterminat, bil-ħlas ta’ somma f’daqqa. Interpretazzjoni ristretta żżejjed ta’ dan it-terminu ddgħajjef l-effettività ta’ din id-dispożizzjoni billi ċċaħħad ir-regola tal-eżawriment minn kull skop, għaliex il-kummerċjalizzazzjoni tas-softwer ħafna drabi tieħu l-forma ta’ liċenzji għall-użu u li jkun biżżejjed għall-fornituri li jikklassifikaw il-kuntratt bħala “liċenzja” u mhux bħala “bejgħ” sabiex jevadu din ir-regola.

60. I infer from this that, even where, as Oracle does, the rightholder draws a somewhat artificial distinction between the making available of the copy of the computer program and the grant of the right to use it, the assignment of a right of use over a copy of a computer program does indeed constitute a sale within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24.

60. Jiena nikkonkludi li, anki jekk id-detentur tad-dritt iwettaq, bħal Oracle, distinzjoni, daqsxejn artifiċjali, bejn it-tqegħid għad-dispożizzjoni tal-kopja tal-programm ta’ kompjuter u l-għoti tad-dritt ta’ użu, iċ-ċessjoni ta’ dritt ta’ użu ta’ kopja tal-programm ta’ kompjuter ċertament tikkostitwixxi bejgħ fis-sens tal-Artikolu 4(2) tad-Direttiva 2009/24.

61. Classifying the transaction as a ‘sale’ does not, however, constitute a sufficient basis on which to conclude that the distribution right may be exhausted in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings.

61. Il-klassifikazzjoni tat-tranżazzjoni bħala “bejgħ” ma tikkostitwixxix, madankollu, fattur suffiċjenti sabiex iwassal għall-konklużjoni li l-eżawriment tad-dritt ta’ distribuzzjoni jista’ jseħħ f’ċirkustanzi bħal dawk fil-kawża prinċipali.

62. Oracle, the Spanish and French Governments, Ireland, the Italian Government and the Commission submit that the scope of any exhaustion that may follow from the sale of the copy of the computer program is necessarily limited in that it is confined exclusively to the right to distribute a copy of a computer program incorporated in a material medium.

62. Oracle, il-Gvern Spanjol u Franċiż, l-Irlanda, il-Gvern Taljan kif ukoll il-Kummissjoni jsostnu li l-eżawriment li jista’ jirriżulta mill-bejgħ tal-kopja tal-programm ta’ kompjuter għandu neċessarjament portata limitata, għaliex jaffettwa esklużivament id-dritt ta’ distribuzzjoni ta’ kopja tal-programm ta’ kompjuter inkorporat f’sostenn materjali.

63. In their submission, that interpretation is supported by a number of arguments.

63. Diversi argumenti jimmilitaw favur din l-interpretazzjoni.

64. It is submitted that the operation of downloading a computer program from the internet is not an act of distribution within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24 and Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29 but an act of communicating the work to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the latter directive. Article 3(3) of Directive 2001/29 states that the right of communication is not exhaustible.

64. Qed jiġi sostnut li l-operazzjoni tat-tniżżil ta’ programm ta’ kompjuter mill-internet ma hijiex att ta’ distribuzzjoni fis-sens tal-Artikolu 4(2) tad-Direttiva 2009/24 u tal-Artikolu 4(1) tad-Direttiva 2001/29, iżda taqa’ taħt il-komunikazzjoni tax-xogħol lill-pubbliku fis-sens tal-Artikolu 3(1) ta’ din l-aħħar direttiva. Madankollu, l-Artikolu 3(3) tad-Direttiva 2001/29 jippreċiża li d-dritt ta’ komunikazzjoni lill-pubbliku ma huwiex is-suġġett ta’ eżawriment.

65. Furthermore, it is clear from the aforementioned Commission report of 10 April 2000 that exhaustion of copyright applies only to the sale of copies, i.e. goods, whereas supply through online services does not entail exhaustion. (34)

65. Barra minn hekk, mir-rapport tal-Kummissjoni, tal-10 ta’ April 2000, imsemmi iktar ’il fuq, jirriżulta b’mod ċar li l-eżawriment tad-dritt tal-awtur japplika biss għall-bejgħ ta’ kopji, jiġifieri ta’ merkanzija, filwaqt li jkun eskluż f’każ ta’ offerta permezz ta’ servizzi online (34) .

66. The same restrictive understanding of the concept of exhaustion can also be found in Directive 2001/29, which provides clear evidence of the EU legislature’s wish to limit the rule to a single form of distribution of the work, that is to say the sale of an item of goods incorporating the computer program.

66. L-istess konċezzjoni restrittiva tal-kunċett ta’ eżawriment tinsab fid-Direttiva 2001/29, li tipprovdi indizji ċari dwar il-volontà tal-leġiżlatur tal-Unjoni li jillimita r-regola għal forma waħda biss ta’ distribuzzjoni tax-xogħol, ikkaratterizzata mill-bejgħ ta’ merkanzija li tinkludi l-programm tal-kompjuter.

67. It is argued in particular that Article 4(2) of Directive 2001/29 provides for the exhaustion of the distribution right only in the event of first sale or first other transfer of ownership of an ‘object’. Moreover, recitals 28 and 29 in the preamble to that directive state, in the case of the former, that copyright protection under that directive includes ‘the exclusive right to control distribution of the work incorporated in a tangible article  [(35) ]’ and, in the case of the latter, that ‘the question of exhaustion does not arise in the case of services and online services in particular’. Recital 29 goes on to say that ‘this also applies with regard to a material copy of a work or other subject-matter made by a user of such a service with the consent of the rightholder [and that] unlike CD‑ROM or CD-I, where the intellectual property is incorporated in a material medium, namely an item of goods, every online service is in fact an act which should be subject to authorisation where the copyright or related right so provides’.

67. Huwa sostnut, b’mod partikolari, li l-Artikolu 4(2) tad-Direttiva 2001/29 jipprovdi għall-eżawriment tad-dritt ta’ distribuzzjoni biss fil-każ tal-ewwel bejgħ jew l-ewwel trasferiment ieħor tal-proprjetà ta’ “oġġett”. Barra minn hekk, il-premessi 28 u 29 ta’ din id-direttiva jippreċiżaw, fir-rigward tal-ewwel, li l-protezzjoni tad-dritt tal-awtur b’applikazzjoni tal-imsemmija Direttiva tinkludi “d-dritt esklussiv biex tikkontrolla d-distribuzzjoni tax- xogħol inkorporat f’oġġett tanġibbli  [(35) ]” u, fir-rigward tat-tieni, li “[i]l-kwistjoni ta’ eżawriment ma tqumx fil-każ ta’ servizzi u servizzi on-line b’mod partikolari”. Din l-aħħar premessa żżid li “[d]in tapplika wkoll rigward kopja materjali ta’ xogħol jew suġġett magħmul minn utent ta’ servizz bħal dan bil-kunsens tad-detentur tad-drittijiet [u li] differenti minn CD-ROM jew CD-I, fejn proprjetà intellettwali hija inkorporta fil-medium tal-materjal, jiġifieri suġġett minn oġġetti, kull servizz on-line huwa fil-fatt att li għandu jkun regolat mill-awtorizzazzjoni fejn id-drittijiet ta’ l-awtur jew drittijiet relatati jipprovdu hekk”.

68. What is more, recital 29 in the preamble to Directive 2001/29 was modelled on recital 33 in the preamble to Directive 96/9, which already makes clear the EU legislature’s intention to provide for exhaustion only in the context of the movement of a product comprising a material container and an intellectual content. That intention is also apparent from recital 43 in the preamble to the latter directive, which states that, in the case of online transmission, the right to prohibit re‑utilisation is not exhausted either as regards the database or as regards the material copy of the database or of part thereof made by the addressee of the transmission with the consent of the rightholder.

68. Barra minn hekk, il-premessa 29 tad-Direttiva 2001/29 tfasslet fuq il-premessa 33 tad-Direttiva 96/9, li kienet diġà tindika b’mod ċar il-volontà tal-leġiżlatur tal-Unjoni li jillimita l-eżawriment fir-rigward biss taċ-ċirkulazzjoni ta’ prodott li jinkorpora kontenut materjali u kontenut intellettwali. Din il-volontà tirriżulta wkoll mill-premessa 43 ta’ din l-aħħar direttiva, li tippreċiża li, fil-każ ta’ trażmissjoni online, id-dritt li jiġi pprojbit użu mill-ġdid ma jkunx eżawrit, kemm għal database u kemm għal kopja materjali tad-database jew ta’ parti minnha li tkun twettqet mid-destinatarju tat-trażmissjoni bil-kunsens tat-titulari tad-dritt.

69. Finally, international law supports the restrictive interpretation of exhaustion. One of the purposes of Directive 2001/29 is to implement the WIPO Copyright Treaty in the Member States. As the Court pointed out in Peek & Cloppenburg , EU legislation must, so far as possible, be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with international law, in particular where its provisions are intended specifically to give effect to an international agreement concluded by the European Union. (36) It must therefore be concluded that Directive 2001/29, which is intended to implement some of the international obligations contained in the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty adopted in Geneva on 20 December 1996, (37) must be interpreted in the light of the Joint Declarations on the WIPO Copyright Treaty, which state that exhaustion of the right of distribution referred to in Article 6(2) of that treaty relates ‘exclusively to fixed copies that can be put into circulation as tangible objects’.

69. Fl-aħħar nett, id-dritt internazzjonali jsostni interpretazzjoni restrittiva tal-eżawriment. Id-Direttiva 2001/29 għandha, b’mod partikolari, l-għan li timplementa, fl-Istati Membri, it-Trattat tal-WIPO dwar id-drittijiet tal-awtur. Madankollu, kif fakkret il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja fis-sentenza Peek & Cloppenburg, iċċitata iktar ’il fuq, id-dritt Komunitarju għandu, kemm jista’ jkun, jiġi interpretat b’mod li jkun konsistenti mad-dritt internazzjonali, b’mod partikolari meta d-dispożizzjonijiet tiegħu jkunu speċifikament intiżi li jimplementaw ftehim internazzjonali konkluż mill-Unjoni (36) . Għandu, konsegwentement, jiġi konkluż li l-interpretazzjoni tad-Direttiva 2001/29, intiża li timplementa ċerti obbligi internazzjonali li jinsabu fit-Trattat tal-WIPO dwar id-drittijiet tal-awtur u t-Trattat tad-WIPO fuq l-interpretazzjonijiet u eżekuzzjonijiet u fuq il-fonogrammi, adottat f’Ġinevra fl-20 ta’ Diċembru 1996 (37), għandha ssir fid-dawl tad-dikjarazzjonijiet komuni dwar it-Trattat tal-WIPO dwar id-drittijiet tal-awtur, li jipprovdu li l-eżawriment tad-dritt ta’ distribuzzjoni li jissemmew fl-Artikolu 6(2) ta’ dan it-Trattat jikkonċerna “esklużivament [...] kopji ffissati li jkunu jistgħu jitqiegħdu fiċ-ċirkolazzjoni bħala oġġetti tanġibbli”.

70. Those arguments do not strike me as being entirely convincing.

70. Ma jidhirlix li dawn l-argumenti huma konvinċenti.

71. In the first place, contrary to what the Commission submits, I do not think that the distribution of a computer program by download from the internet can escape classification as a ‘distribution right’ so as to fall within the definition of the right of communication to the public provided for in Article 3(3) of Directive 2001/29. There are, in my view, two fundamental objections to that interpretation.

71. Fl-ewwel lok, kuntrarjament għal dak li ssostni l-Kummissjoni, jiena ma naħsibx li d-distribuzzjoni ta’ programm ta’ kompjuter permezz tat-tniżżil minn fuq l-internet jista’ jiġi eskluż mill-klassifikazzjoni ta’ “dritt ta’ distribuzzjoni” sabiex jaqa’ taħt id-definizzjoni tad-dritt ta’ komunikazzjoni lill-pubbliku stabbilit fl-Artikolu 3(3) tad-Direttiva 2001/29. Fil-fehma tiegħi, hemm żewġ oġġezzjonijiet fundamentali importanti għal din l-interpretazzjoni.

72. First, if we accept that the general provisions of Directive 2001/29, the very purpose of which is to adapt copyright to the digital environment, may inform the interpretation of the special provisions contained in Directive 2009/24, which simply codifies Directive 91/250, adopted before the emergence of the internet, it must nevertheless be noted that Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2001/29 states that the latter ‘shall leave intact and shall in no way affect existing [EU] provisions relating to … the legal protection of computer programs’. In so far as Directive 2009/24 makes no reference to the concept of right of communication and defines the right of distribution in the broadest sense as encompassing ‘any form of distribution to the public … of the original computer program or of copies thereof’, I find it difficult to conclude, on a combined reading of those two directives, that the right to make a work available to the public as referred to in Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 is applicable to computer programs. Moreover, I do not consider that the judgment in Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace , on which the Commission relies in support of its argument, can be interpreted to that effect. (38)

72. L-ewwel nett, jekk naċċetta li d-dispożizzjonijiet ġenerali tad-Direttiva 2001/29, li għandha speċifikament l-għan li tadatta d-dritt tal-awtur għall-qasam diġitali, jistgħu jiggwidaw l-interpretazzjoni tad-dispożizzjonijiet speċjali tad-Direttiva 2009/24, li hija limitata li tikkodifika d-Direttiva 91/250, adottata qabel ma żviluppa l-internet, għandu madankollu jiġi kkonstatat li l-Artikolu 1(2)(a) tad-Direttiva 2001/29 jippreċiża li hija “għandha tkun bla ħsara u m’għandha bl-ebda mod taffettwa d-disposizzjonijiet eżistenti [tad-dritt tal-Unjoni] dwar […] il-protezzjoni legali ta’ programmi tal-kompjuters”. Sa fejn id-Direttiva 2009/24 ma tagħmel l-ebda riferiment għall-kunċett tad-dritt ta’ komunikazzjoni u tiddefinixxi d-dritt ta’ distribuzzjoni b’mod l-iktar wiesa’, li jinkludi “kull forma ta’ distribuzzjoni […] lill-pubbliku tal-oriġinal ta’ programm tal-kompjuter jew kopji tiegħu”, jidhirli diffiċli li wieħed jikkunsidra, minn qari ta’ dawn iż-żewġ direttivi flimkien, li d-dritt ta’ tqegħid għad-dispozizzjoni lill-pubbliku imsemmi fl-Artikolu 3(1) tad-Direttiva 2001/29 huwa applikabbli għall-programmi tal-kompjuter. Barra minn hekk, jiena ma nikkunsidrax li s-sentenza Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace, iċċitata iktar ’il fuq, invokata mill-Kummissjoni sabiex issostni r-raġunament tagħha, tista’ tiġi interpretata f’dan is-sens (38) .

73. Next, in the absence of any definition in Directive 2001/29 of the right to communicate works to the public, the right to make works available to the public and the right of distribution, Articles 3 and 4 of that directive must be interpreted as far as possible in the light of the WIPO Copyright Treaty. (39) Article 6(1) of that treaty refers to the distribution right as being the right to authorise the making available to the public of the original and copies of a work ‘through sale or other transfer of ownership’. The wording of that provision is unequivocal. The existence of a transfer of ownership clearly changes a mere act of communication to the public into an act of distribution.

73. Sussegwentement, fin-nuqqas ta’ kull definizzjoni, fid-Direttiva 2001/29, tad-drittijiet ta’ komunikazzjoni ta’ xogħlijiet lill-pubbliku, ta’ tqegħid għad-dispożizzjoni lill-pubbliku u ta’ distribuzzjoni, l-Artikoli 3 u 4 ta’ din id-direttiva għandhom jiġu interpretati, sa fejn possibbli, fid-dawl tat-Trattat tal-WIPO dwar id-drittijiet tal-awtur (39) . Madankollu, l-Artikolu 6(1) ta’ dan it-Trattat jirreferi għad-dritt ta’ distribuzzjoni li huwa jiddefinixxi bħala d-dritt li jiġi awtorizzat it-tqegħid għad-dispożizzjoni tal-pubbliku tal-oriġinali u ta’ kopji ta’ xogħol “permezz ta’ bejgħ jew trasferiment ieħor ta’ proprjetà”. Il-kliem ta’ din id-dispożizzjoni huwa inekwivoku. L-eżistenza ta’ trasferiment ta’ proprjetà kjarament tittrasforma sempliċi att ta’ komunikazzjoni lill-pubbliku f’att ta’ distribuzzjoni.

74. Secondly, the evidence contained in the preamble to Directive 2001/29 is neither clear nor unambiguous.

74. Fit-tieni lok, l-indikazzjonijiet li jinsabu fil-premessi tad-Direttiva 2001/29 la huma ċari u lanqas inekwivoċi.

75. Thus, a converse reading of the first sentence of recital 28 in the preamble to that directive, which provides that ‘[c]opyright protection under this Directive includes  [(40) ] the exclusive right to control distribution of the work incorporated in a tangible article’, implies that that right also includes other forms of distribution. Indeed, the second sentence of that recital, relating to exhaustion, does not limit exhaustion to one particular form of distri bution.

75. Għalhekk, qari a contrario tal-ewwel sentenza tal-premessa 28 ta’ din id-direttiva, li tipprovdi li “[i]l-protezzjoni tad-drittijiet ta’ l-awtur skond din id-Direttiva tinkludi  [(40) ] d-dritt esklussiv biex tikkontrolla d-distribuzzjoni tax-xogħol inkorporat f’oġġett tanġibbli”, jimplika li dan id-dritt jinkorpora wkoll forom oħra ta’ distribuzzjoni. Madankollu, it-tieni sentenza ta’ din il-premessa, dwar l-eżawriment, ma tillimitax dan id-dritt għal forma partikolari ta’ distribuzzjoni.

76. Recital 29 in the preamble to Directive 2001/29 is not without ambiguity either. While it appears to draw a distinction between the sale of goods, to which the exhaustion rule would apply, and the provision of services, to which that rule would be inapplicable, the fact remains that online services, as defined by EU law, include the sale of goods online. (41) Thus, for example, by the standard of the wording of that recital, the exhaustion rule should not apply to an online purchase of a CD-ROM in which the copy of the computer program is incorporated. To my mind, however, the distinction as to whether the sale takes place remotely or otherwise is irrelevant for the purposes of applying that rule.

76. Il-premessa 29 tad-Direttiva 2001/29 ma hijiex inqas ambigwa. Filwaqt li tidher li tagħmel distinzjoni bejn il-bejgħ ta’ merkanzija, li għalih tapplika r-regola tal-eżawriment, u l-provvista ta’ servizzi, li għaliha din ir-regola għandha tkun inapplikabbli, ma huwiex inqas minnu li l-kunċett ta’ servizzi online, kif iddefinit mid-dritt tal-Unjoni, jinkludi l-bejgħ ta’ oġġetti online (41) . GħalhCD-ROM li fiha hija inkorporata l-kopja ta’ programm tal-kompjuter. Madankollu, id-distinzjoni dwar jekk il-bejgħ seħħx mill-bogħod jew le tidhirli li hija rrilevanti għall-applikazzjoni ta’ din ir-regola.

77. Thirdly, an interpretation of Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24 to the effect that the exhaustion rule does not apply to internet downloads, when that form of marketing is used extensively to distribute computer programs, would have the effect of limiting the scope of that rule very significantly and, at the same time, of restricting freedom of movement.

77. Fit-tielet lok, l-interpretazzjoni tal-Artikolu 4(2) tad-Direttiva 2009/24 fis-sens li r-regola tal-eżawriment għandha tkun eskluża fil-każ ta’ tniżżil minn fuq l-internet, meta din il-forma ta’ kummerċjalizzazzjoni tintuża fil-parti l-kbira sabiex tiddistribwixxi programmi tal-kompjuter huma ddistribwiti taħt dik il-forma ta’ kummerċ, ikollha l-effett li tillimita b’mod kunsiderevoli ħafna l-kamp ta’ applikazzjoni ta’ din ir-regola u, fl-istess waqt, tillimita l-libertà tal-moviment.

78. Although Article 36 TFEU provides that such restrictions may be justified on grounds of, inter alia, the protection of industrial and commercial property, it is none the less settled case-law that a derogation on that ground is allowed only to the extent that it is justified by the need to safeguard the rights which constitute the specific subject-matter of that property. (42) That principle makes it necessary to determine, in relation to each intellectual property right in question, the conditions under which the exercise of that right will be regarded as being compatible or otherwise with EU law.

78. Għalkemm l-Artikolu 36 TFUE jipprovdi li dawn ir-restrizzjonijiet jistgħu jkunu ġġustifikati minħabba raġunijiet relatati, b’mod partikolari, mal-protezzjoni tal-proprjetà industrijali u kummerċjali, hija, madankollu, ġurisprudenza stabbilita li deroga bbażata fuq dan il-motiv hija ammessa biss sa fejn hija ġġustifikata bis-salvagwardja tad-drittijiet li jikkostitwixxu s-suġġett speċifiku ta’ din il-proprjetà (42) . Dan il-prinċipju jimplika li jiġu ddeterminati, għal kull dritt ta’ proprjetà intellettwali kkonċernat, il-kundizzjonijiet li fir-rigward tagħhom l-eżerċizzju ta’ dan id-dritt għandu jiġi kkunsidrat bħala kompatibbli jew le mad-dritt tal-Unjoni.

79. However, I doubt that authorising the rightholder to prevent a person who has lawfully acquired ownership of a copy of a computer program from reselling it falls within the ambit of safeguarding the rights which constitute the specific subject-matter of copyright.

79. Madankollu, jiena niddubita kemm l-awtorizzazzjoni lit-titulari tad-dritt li jipprojbixxi persuna, li tkun legalment akkwistat il-proprjetà ta’ kopja ta’ programm tal-kompjuter, milli tbiegħha mill-ġdid, taqa’ fis-salvagwardja tad-drittijiet li jikkostitwixxu s-suġġett speċifiku tad-dritt tal-awtur.

80. The Court, in its assessment of the legality of derogations from the freedom of movement on grounds of the protection of copyright, ascertains whether or not the copyright holder was deprived of the remuneration to which he was legitimately entitled.

80. Il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja, fl-evalwazzjoni tagħha tal-legalità tad-derogi għall-moviment liberu ġġustifikati bil-protezzjoni tad-dritt tal-awtur, tfittex jekk it-titulari tad-dritt tal-awtur iċċaħħadx jew le mir-remunerazzjoni li għaliha kellu legalment dritt.

81. In Football Association Premier League and Others , the Court, after pointing out that derogations from the principle of freedom of movement can be allowed only to the extent to which they are justified for the purpose of safeguarding the rights which constitute the specific subject-matter of the intellectual property concerned and that the specific subject-matter of the intellectual property is intended in particular to ensure for the rightholders concerned protection of the right to exploit commercially the marketing or the making available of the protected subject-matter, by the grant of licences in return for payment of remuneration, stated that the specific subject-matter of the intellectual property does not guarantee the rightholders concerned the opportunity to demand the highest possible remuneration but only appropriate remuneration, that is to say, reasonable in relation to the economic value of the service provided, for each use of the protected subject-matter. (43)

81. Fis-sentenza tagħha, Football Association Premier League et , iċċitata iktar‘il fuq, il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja, wara li fakkret li d-derogi għall-prinċipju tal-moviment liberu jistgħu jiġu ammessi biss sa fejn huma ġġustifikati bis-salvagwardja tad-drittijiet li jikkostitwixxu l-għan speċifiku tal-proprjetà intellettwali kkonċernata u li dan l-għan speċifiku huwa intiż b’mod partikolari li jiżgura lill-proprjetarji tad-drittijiet ikkonċernati il-protezzjoni tal-possibbiltà li jieħdu vantaġġ kummerċjali mit-tqegħid għad-dispożizzjoni tal-oġġetti protetti, billi jagħtu liċenzji kontra l-pagament ta’ remunerazzjoni, iddikjarat li għan speċifiku bħal dan ma jiggarantixxix lill-proprjetarji tad-drittijiet ikkonċernati l-possibbiltà li jitolbu l-ogħla remunerazzjoni possibbli, iżda remunerazzjoni xierqa biss, jiġifieri b’relazzjoni raġonevoli mal-valur ekonomiku tas-servizz ipprovdut, għal kull użu tal-oġġetti protetti (43) .

82. Then, having found that the premium paid by broadcasters in order to be granted absolute territorial exclusivity was such as to result in artificial price differences between the partitioned national markets, it inferred from this that such a payment went beyond what was necessary to ensure appropriate remuneration for the rightholders. (44)

82. Sussegwentement, filwaqt li kkonstatat li l-ammont supplimentari mħallas minn organizzazzjonijiet ta’ xandir għall-għoti ta’ esklużività territorjali assoluta kien ta’ natura li jwassal għal differenzi fil-prezzijiet artifiċjali bejn is-swieq nazzjonali maqsuma f’kompartamenti, hija kkonkludiet li dan il-ħlas kien imur lil hinn minn dak li kien neċessarju sabiex jiżgura lill-proprjetarji tad-drittijiet remunerazzjoni xierqa (44) .

83. I consider that, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the rightholder has received appropriate remuneration where he has been paid in return for the grant of a right to use a copy of a computer program. Allowing him to control the resale of that copy and, in that event, to demand further remuneration, on the pretext that the copy was fixed on a data carrier by the customer after having been downloaded from the internet, instead of being incorporated by the rightholder in a medium which was put on sale, would have the effect not of protecting the specific subject-matter of the copyright but of extending the monopoly on the exploitation of that right.

83. Jiena naħseb li, f’ċirkustanzi bħal dawk fil-kawża prinċipali, it-titulari tad-drittijiet irċieva remunerazzjoni xierqa meta huwa tħallas bħala korrispettiv għall-għoti ta’ dritt ta’ użu ta’ kopja tal-programm tal-kompjuter. L-ammissjoni li huwa jista’ jikkontrolla l-bejgħ mill-ġdid ta’ dik il-kopja u jeżigi, f’din l-okkażjoni, remunerazzjoni oħra, bl-iskuża li din il-kopja kienet ġiet stabbilita fuq sostenn informatiku mill-klijent, wara li jkun niżżilha minn fuq l-internet, minflok ma tkun ġiet inkorporata mit-titulari tad-drittijiet fuq sostenn li tkun tpoġġa għall-bejgħ, isservi mhux sabiex tipproteġi l-oġġett speċifiku tad-dritt tal-awtur, iżda sabiex iżżid il-monopolju ta’ użu ta’ dan tal-aħħar.

84. In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the second question raised by the referring court should be that Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24 must be interpreted as meaning that the right to distribute the copy of a computer program is exhausted if the rightholder, who allowed that copy to be downloaded from the internet to a data carrier, also granted, for consideration, a right to use that copy for an unlimited period of time. After all, a sale within the meaning of that provision is constituted by any act by which a copy of a computer program is made available in the European Union, in any form and by any means, for the purpose of being used for an unlimited period and in return for a lump-sum payment.

84. Fid-dawl tal-kunsiderazzjonijiet preċedenti, ir-risposta li għandha tingħata għat-tieni domanda magħmula mill-qorti tar-rinviju għandha tkun li l-Artikolu 4(2) tad-Direttiva 2009/24 għandu jiġi interpretat fis-sens li d-dritt ta’ distribuzzjoni tal-kopja ta’ programm tal-kompjuter huwa eżawrit jekk it-titulari tad-dritt, li jkun awtorizza t-tniżżil mill-internet ta’ din il-kopja fuq sostenn informatiku, ikun awtorizza wkoll, bi ħlas, id-dritt ta’ użu ta’ din il-kopja għal żmien indeterminat. Fil-fatt, jikkostitwixxi bejgħ, fis-sens ta’ din id-dispożizzjoni, kull tqegħid għad-dispożizzjoni fl-Unjoni, fi kwalunkwe forma u b’kull mod, ta’ kopja ta’ programm tal-kompjuter bil-għan li tintuża matul perijodu indeterminat, bil-korrispettiv ta’ ħlas ta’ somma f’daqqa.

C – The first and third questions

C – Fuq l-ewwel u t-tielet domandi

85. By its first and third questions, the referring court asks the Court, in essence, whether, as a ‘lawful acquirer’ within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2009/24, the acquirer of the user licence may rely on the exhaustion rule laid down in Article 4(2) of that directive in order to make a new copy of the computer program if the first acquirer has erased his copy or no longer uses it.

85. Bl-ewwel u t-tielet domandi tagħha, il-qorti tar-rinviju essenzjalment tistaqsi lill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja jekk, bħala “min jikseb legalment”, skont l-Artikolu 5(1) tad-Direttiva 2009/24, l-akkwirent tal-liċenzja ta’ użu jistax jinvoka r-regola tal-eżawriment prevista fl-Artikolu 4(2) ta’ din id-direttiva sabiex jagħmel kopja ġdida tal-programm tal-kompjuter, meta l-ewwel akkwirent iħassar il-kopja tiegħu jew ma jibqax jużaha.

1. Observations of the parties to the main proceedings, the governments and the Commission

1. L-osservazzjonijiet tal-partijiet fil-kawża prinċipali, tal-Gvernijiet u tal-Kummissjoni

86. UsedSoft submits that the principle of exhaustion would be divested of its substance if it were held that the rightholder could not control the further distribution of copies of programs but could continue to control acts of use which require the program to be reproduced.

86. UsedSoft issostni li l-prinċipju tal-eżawriment ikun mingħajr skop jekk jiġi kkonstatat li t-titulari tad-dritt ma jkunx jista’ jikkontrolla d-distribuzzjoni ulterjuri ta’ kopji tal-programmi iżda jkun jista’ jkompli jikkontrolla l-atti ta’ użu li jeħtieġu riproduzzjoni tal-programm.

87. UsedSoft adds that the fact that the first acquirer erases or no longer uses his copy of the computer program makes it possible to ensure that the computer software transferred by the manufacturer will not be used on two or more occasions.

87. UsedSoft issostni wkoll li l-fatt li l-ewwel akkwirent iħassar jew ma jibqax juża l-kopja tiegħu tal-programm ta’ kompjuter jippermetti li jiggarantixxi li s-softwer ittrasferit mill-manifattur ma jintużax darbtejn jew iktar.

88. In Oracle’s view, the term ‘lawful acquirer’ in Article 5(1) of Directive 2009/24 refers only to an acquirer authorised to use the computer program under a licensing agreement, whereas the expression ‘use in accordance with the intended purpose [of the computer program]’ relates to use in accordance with the right of use conferred by the rightholder, with the result that it must be defined, where appropriate, on the basis of the relevant stipulations of the licensing agreement defining the nature and extent of the right of use.

88. Skont Oracle, il-kunċett ta’ “min jikseb legalment”, li jinsab fl-Artikolu 5(1) tad-Direttiva 2009/24, jirreferi biss għall-akkwirent awtorizzat, bis-saħħa ta’ kuntratt ta’ liċenzja, li juża l-programm tal-kompjuter, filwaqt li l-kunċett ta’ “użu tal-programm tal-kompjuter [...] skont il-fini maħsub tiegħu” jirrigwarda użu konformi mad-dritt ta’ użu mogħti mit-titulari tad-dritt, b’mod li huwa għandu jiġi ddefinit, jekk ikun il-każ, fuq il-bażi tal-istipulazzjonijiet rilevanti tal-kuntratt tal-liċenzja li jiddefinixxu n-natura u l-portata tad-dritt ta’ użu.

89. Oracle adds that exhaustion relates only to the right to distribute the copy of the computer program put into circulation and cannot affect the right of use, which includes a right of reproduction in the case of computer programs the use of which involves reproduction.

89. Oracle issostni wkoll li l-eżawriment jikkonċerna biss id-dritt ta’ distribuzzjoni tal-kopja tal-programm ta’ kompjuter li tqiegħdet fiċ-ċirkulazzjoni u ma jistax jaffettwa d-dritt ta’ użu, li jinkludi dritt ta’ riproduzzjoni, fir-rigward ta’ programmi tal-kompjuter li l-użu tagħhom jimplika r-riproduzzjoni.

90. According to Oracle, which argues by analogy with trade mark law, the meaning and purpose of the principle of exhaustion is not to confer on persons other than the rightholder the legal power necessary to divide and break up the right of initial use held by a specific number of users into many additional rights of use. A further drawback of the practice of reselling ‘used’ licences is that it makes it impossible to market licences at a reduced price to make it easier for the programs to be used by financially fragile user groups such as training institutions.

90. Skont Oracle, li targumenta b’analoġija mad-dritt tat-trademarks, is-sens u l-għan tal-prinċipju tal-eżawriment ma jikkonferixxux lil persuni minbarra t-titulari tad-dritt il-poter legali meħtieġ li jaqsam u jiżmonta d-dritt ta’ użu inizjali, li jikkorrispondi għal numru determinat ta’ utenti, f’numru ta’ diversi drittijiet addizzjonali ta’ użu. Il-prattika tal-bejgħ mill-ġdid ta’ liċenzji “użati” tippreżenta, barra minn hekk, l-inkonvenjent li jirrendi impossibbli l-kummerċ ta’ liċenzji bi prezz imnaqqas li jiffaċilita l-użu tal-programmi minn gruppi ta’ utenti finanzjarjament fraġli, bħal ma huma istituzzjonijiet edukattivi.

91. Oracle also argues that neither the rightholder nor the sub-acquirer can verify that the first acquirer has indeed erased his copy or no longer uses it.

91. Oracle ssostni wkoll li la t-titulari tad-dritt u lanqas is-subakkwirent ma jistgħu jivverifikaw li l-ewwel akkwirent effettivament ħassar il-kopja tiegħu jew ma għadux jużaha.

92. The French Government, Ireland and the Italian Government maintain, in essence, that only the person who possesses a right to use the computer program conferred by the rightholder can be considered to be a ‘lawful acquirer’ within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2009/24. The French Government and Ireland further submit that a person who has not acquired a licence from the rightholder and is not therefore the lawful acquirer of the program cannot rely on the exhaustion rule.

92. Il-Gvern Franċiż, l-Irlanda u l-Gvern Taljan essenzjalment isostnu li hija biss l-persuna li tgawdi minn dritt ta’ użu tal-programm ta’ kompjuter mogħti mit-titulari tad-dritt li tista’ tiġi kkunsidrata bħala “min jikseb legalment” skont l-Artikolu 5(1) tad-Direttiva 2009/24. Il-Gvern Franċiż u l-Irlanda jesponu, barra minn hekk, li l-persuna li ma tkunx akkwistat il-liċenzja mingħand it-titulari tad-dritt u li, konsegwentement, ma tkunx l-akkwirent legali, ma tistax tinvoka ir-regola tal-eżawriment.

93. While they take the view that the person who can rely on exhaustion of the right to distribute the copy of the computer program is a ‘lawful acquirer’ within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2009/24, the Spanish Government and the Commission consider that there is no need to answer the third question raised by the referring court since their answer to the second question is in the negative.

93. Filwaqt li jqisu li l-persuna li tista’ tinvoka l-eżawriment tad-dritt ta’ distribuzzjoni tal-kopja tal-programm ta’ kompjuter hija “min jikseb legalment” skont l-Artikolu 5(1) tad-Direttiva 2009/24, il-Gvern Spanjol u l-Kummissjoni jqisu li ma hemmx lok li tingħata risposta għat-tielet domanda tal-qorti tar-rinviju, għaliex huma irrispondew għat-tieni domanda fin-negattiv.

2. My assessment

2. L-evalwazzjoni tiegħi

94. The answer to this question can be inferred, in my view, from the distinction between the right of distribution, which is exhaustible, and the right of reproduction, which is not exhaustible.

94. Ir-risposta għal din id-domanda tista’ tirriżulta, fil-fehma tiegħi, mid-distinzjoni bejn id-dritt ta’ distribuzzjoni, li huwa eżawrjenti, u d-dritt ta’ riproduzzjoni, li ma huwiex eżawrjenti.

95. It is common ground in this case that the user licence conferred by Oracle allows the computer program to be reproduced via a connection to Oracle’s website. It follows from this, in my view, that the assignment of the rights of use conferred by that licence falls within the ambit not of the right of distribution but of the right of reproduction.

95. Huwa paċifiku, f’din il-kawża, li l-liċenzja ta’ użu mogħtija minn Oracle tippermetti li, b’konnessjoni mas-sit tal-internet ta’ Oracle, li ssir riproduzzjoni mill-ġdid tal-programm tal-kompjuter. Minn dan jirriżulta, fil-fehma tiegħi, li ċ-ċessjoni tad-drittijiet ta’ użu mogħtija b’din il-liċenzja ma taqax taħt id-dritt ta’ distribuzzjoni, iżda taħt id-dritt ta’ riproduzzjoni.

96. While the simultaneous resale of the downloaded copy by the first acquirer, together with its use, falls within the ambit of the right of distribution, the assignment of a user licence such as that issued by Oracle to its customers involves the exercise of the exclusive right of reproduction, since it allows a new copy of the program to be made by download from the internet or by reproduction from a copy already held by the user.

96. Filwaqt li l-bejgħ mill-ġdid tal-kopja imniżżla mill-ewwel akkwirent jaqa’ taħt id-dritt ta’ distribuzzjoni, iċ-ċessjoni ta’ liċenzja ta’ użu bħal dik mogħtija minn Oracle lill-klijenti tagħha tinvolvi l-eżerċizzju tad-dritt esklużiv ta’ riproduzzjoni, peress li hija tippermetti l-ħolqien ta’ kopja ġdida tal-programm billi jitniżżel minn fuq l-internet jew bir-riproduzzjoni minn fuq kopja li diġà tinsab għand l-utent.

97. It follows from the clear wording of Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24 that the principle of exhaustion relates exclusively to the distribution of a copy of the computer program and cannot adversely affect the right of reproduction, which cannot be impaired without adversely affecting the very substance of the copyright.

97. Madankollu, jirriżulta mill-kliem ċar tal-Artikolu 4(2) tad-Direttiva 2009/24, li l-prinċipju tal-eżawriment jikkonċerna esklużivament id-distribuzzjoni ta’ kopja tal-programm ta’ kompjuter u ma għandux jaffettwa d-dritt ta’ riproduzzjoni, li ma jistax jiġi ppreġudikat mingħajr ma tinbidel is-sustanza nfisha tad-dritt tal-awtur.

98. Moreover, in my view, that obstacle cannot be circumvented by recourse to Article 5(1) of that directive. As I see it, the purpose of that provision is confined to enabling a person who already possesses a copy of the computer program to make a reproduction of that copy so that the program can be used for its intended purpose. It does not, however, authorise a person who does not already possess a copy of the program to reproduce it not in order to use it in accordance with its intended purpose but simply in order to use it. Furthermore, that provision, which is conditional on the absence of specific contractual provisions, can, in my opinion, apply only to an acquirer who has a contractual relationship with the rightholder.

98. Barra minn hekk, l-Artikolu 5(1) ta’ din id-direttiva ma jidhirlix li huwa ta’ natura li jippermetti li jingħeleb dan l-ostakolu. Fil-fehma tiegħi, l-oġġett ta’ din id-dispożizzjoni huwa llimitat li jippermetti lil min għandu diġà kopja tal-programm ta’ kompjuter jirriproduċi din il-kopja sabiex jużawha skont il-finijiet tiegħu. Għall-kuntrarju, dan l-artikolu ma għandux jawtorizza lil min ma għandux diġà kopja tal-programm jirriproduċi dan il-programm mhux sabiex jużah skont il-finijiet tiegħu, iżda sabiex sempliċement jużah. Barra minn hekk, din id-dispożizzjoni, li tirriżerva l-applikazzjoni tad-dispożizzjonijiet kuntrattwali partikolari, ma tistax, fil-fehma tiegħi, tiġi applikata fir-rigward ta’ akkwirent kuntrattwalment marbut mat-titulari tad-dritt.

99. I do not consider that, as the legislation currently stands, the exhaustion rule, which is inherently linked to the right of distribution, can be extended to the right of reproduction. I am aware that confining the rule in this way only to copies materially incorporated in a data carrier after being downloaded from the internet will severely limit its scope in practice but, although justifiable on grounds of the need to preserve the effectiveness of the exhaustion rule and to give precedence to the free movement of goods and services, the converse solution, which would have the effect of widening the scope of the exhaustion rule beyond that envisaged by the EU legislature, (45) cannot, in my view, be adopted without jeopardising the principle of legal certainty, which requires the rules of EU law to be foreseeable.

99. Ma jidhirlix li huwa possibbli, fl-istat attwali tal-leġiżlazzjoni, li r-regola tal-eżawriment, li hija marbuta b’mod inerenti mad-dritt ta’ distribuzzjoni, tiġi estiża għad-dritt ta’ riproduzzjoni. Jiena konxju mill-fatt li l-kompartimentalizzazzjoni tar-regola għal kopji li huma inkorporati materjalment fuq sostenn informatiku wara li jitniżżlu mill-internet, ser tillimita, fil-prattika, il-portata tagħha, iżda, anki jekk hija tista’ ssib appoġġ fin-neċessità li tinżamm l-effettività tar-regola tal-eżawriment u li tingħata prevalenza lill-moviment liberu tal-merkanzija u tas-servizzi, is-soluzzjoni kuntrarja, li sservi sabiex testendi l-applikazzjoni tar-regola tal-eżawriment lil hinn mill-portata maħsuba mil-leġiżlatur tal-Unjoni (45), ma tistax tiġi adottata minħajr ma jiddgħajjef il-prinċipju taċ-ċertezza legali, li jeżiġi l-prevedibbiltà tad-dritt Ewropew.

100. I conclude from the foregoing that Article 4(2) and Article 5(1) of Directive 2009/24 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of resale of the right to use the copy of a computer program, the second acquirer cannot rely on exhaustion of the right to distribute that copy in order to reproduce the program by creating a new copy, even if the first acquirer has erased his copy or no longer uses it.

100. Mill-kunsiderazzjonijiet preċedenti nikkonkludi li l-Artikoli 4(2) u 5(1) tad-Direttiva 2009/24 għandhom jiġu interpretati fis-sens li, f’każ ta’ bejgħ mill-ġdid tad-dritt ta’ użu tal-kopja ta’ programm tal-kompjuter, it-tieni akkwirent ma jistax jinvoka l-eżawriment tad-dritt ta’ distribuzzjoni ta’ din il-kopja sabiex jirriproduċi l-programm billi joħloq kopja ġdida, anki jekk l-ewwel akkwirent ikun ħassar il-kopja tiegħu jew ma jkunx għadu jużaha.

V – Conclusion

V – Konklużjoni

101. In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court should reply as follows to the questions referred by the Bundesgerichtshof:

101. Fid-dawl tal-kunsiderazzjonijiet preċedenti, nipproponi li l-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja tagħti risposta lill-Bundesgerichtshof kif ġej:

(1) Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs must be interpreted as meaning that the right to distribute the copy of a computer program is exhausted if the rightholder, who allowed that copy to be downloaded from the internet to a data carrier, also granted, for consideration, a right to use that copy for an unlimited period of time.

“1) L-Artikolu 4(2) tad-Direttiva 2009/24/KE tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill, tat-23 ta’ April 2009, dwar il-protezzjoni legali ta’ programmi tal-kompjuter, għandu jiġi interpretat fis-sens li d-dritt ta’ distribuzzjoni tal-kopja ta’ programm tal-kompjuter huwa eżawrit jekk it-titulari tad-dritt, li jkun awtorizza t-tniżżil mill-internet ta’ din il-kopja fuq sostenn informatiku, ikun awtorizza wkoll, bi ħlas, id-dritt ta’ użu ta’ din il-kopja għal żmien indeterminat.

After all, a sale within the meaning of that provision is constituted by any act by which a copy of a computer program is made available in the European Union, in any form and by any means, for the purpose of being used for an unlimited period and in return for a lump-sum payment.

Fil-fatt, jikkostitwixxi bejgħ, fis-sens ta’ din id-dispożizzjoni, kull tqegħid għad-dispożizzjoni fl-Unjoni, fi kwalunkwe forma u b’kull mod, ta’ kopja ta’ programm tal-kompjuter bil-għan li tintuża matul perijodu indeterminat, bil-korrispettiv ta’ ħlas ta’ somma f’daqqa.

(2) Articles 4(2) and 5(1) of Directive 2009/24 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of resale of the right to use the copy of a computer program, the second acquirer cannot rely on exhaustion of the right to distribute that copy in order to reproduce the program by creating a new copy, even if the first acquirer has erased his copy or no longer uses it.

2) L-Artikoli 4(2) u 5(1) tad-Direttiva 2009/24 għandhom jiġu interpretati fis-sens li, f’każ ta’ bejgħ mill-ġdid tad-dritt ta’ użu tal-kopja ta’ programm tal-kompjuter, it-tieni akkwirent ma jistax jinvoka l-eżawriment tad-dritt ta’ distribuzzjoni ta’ din il-kopja sabiex jirriproduċi l-programm billi joħloq kopja ġdida, anki jekk l-ewwel akkwirent ikun ħassar il-kopja tiegħu jew ma jkunx għadu jużaha.”

(1) .

(1) .

(2)  – OJ 2009 L 111, p. 16.

(2) – ĠU L 111, p. 16.

(3)  – ‘UsedSoft’.

(3)  – Iktar ’il quddiem “UsedSoft”.

(4)  – ‘Oracle’.

(4)  – Iktar ’il quddiem “Oracle”.

(5)  – OJ 2000 L 89, p. 6.

(5)  – ĠU Edizzjoni Speċjali bil-Malti, Kapitolu 11, Vol. 33, p. 208.

(6)  – OJ 1991 L 122, p. 42.

(6)  – ĠU Edizzjoni Speċjali bil-Malti, Kapitolu 17, Vol. 1, p. 114.

(7)  – OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.

(7)  – ĠU Edizzjoni Speċjali bil-Malti, Kapitolu 17, Vol. 1, p. 230.

(8)  – Council Directive 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).

(8)  – Direttiva tal-Kunsill tad-19 ta’ Novembru 1992 dwar dritt ta’ kiri u dritt ta’ self u dwar ċerti drittijiet relatati mad-drittijiet tal-awtur fil-qasam tal-proprjetà intellettwali (ĠU Edizzjoni Speċjali bil-Malti, Kapitolu 17, Vol. 1, p. 120).

(9)  – BGBl. 1965 I, p. 1273.

(9)  – BGBl. 1965 I, p. 1273.

(10)  – OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3.

(10)  – ĠU 1994, L 1, p. 3.

(11)  – Case C‑203/02 [2004] ECR I-10415, paragraphs 58 and 59.

(11)  – C‑203/02, Ġabra p. I‑10415, punti 58 u 59.

(12)  – COM(2000) 199 final.

(12)  – COM(2000) 199 finali.

(13)  – Case 19/84 [1985] ECR 2281.

(13)  – 19/84, Ġabra p. 2281.

(14)  – Case C‑200/96 Metronome Musik [1998] ECR I-1953.

(14)  – B’mod partikolari s-sentenza tat-28 ta’ April 1998, Metronome Musik (C‑200/96, Ġabra p. I‑1953).

(15)  – On the history of and rationale behind the principle, see Castell, B., L’‘épuisement’ du droit intellectuel en droits allemand, français et communautaire , PUF, Paris, 1989.

(15)  – Fuq l-oriġini u l-ġustifikazzjonijiet tal-prinċipju, ara Castell, B., L’ “ épuisement ” du droit intellectuel en droits allemand, français et communautaire, PUF, Pariġi, 1989.

(16)  – See Beier, F.-K., ‘La territorialité du droit des marques et les échanges internationaux’, in Journal du droit international, 1971, p. 5, in particular p. 14.

(16)  – Ara Beier, F.‑K., “La territorialité du droit des marques et les échanges internationaux”, Journal du droit international, 1971, p. 14.

(17)  – Case 78/70 [1971] ECR 487.

(17)  – 78/70, Ġabra p. 487.

(18)  – Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25). Article 7 of Directive 2008/95 provides:

(18)  – Direttiva 2008/95/KE tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill, tat-22 ta’ Ottubru 2008, biex jiġu approssimati l-liġijiet tal-Istati Membri dwar it-trade marks (ĠU L 299, p. 25). L-Artikolu 7 tad-Direttiva 2008/95/KE jipprovdi:

‘1. The trade mark shall not entitle the proprietor to prohibit its use in relation to goods which have been put on the market in the [European Union] under that trade mark by the proprietor or with his consent.

“1. It-trade mark m’għandhiex tagħti d-dritt lill-proprjetarju li jipprojbixxi l-użu tagħha relattivament għal merkanzija li tqiegħdet fis-suq fil-Komunità taħt dik it-trade mark mill-proprjetarju jew bil-kunsens tiegħu.

2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply where there exist legitimate reasons for the proprietor to oppose further commercialisation of the goods, especially where the condition of the goods is changed or impaired after they have been put on the market.’

2. Il-paragrafu 1 m’għandux japplika fejn jeżistu raġunijiet leġittimi għall-proprjetarju sabiex jopponi aktar kummerċjalizzazzjoni tal-merkanzija, speċjalment fejn il-kondizzjoni tal-merkanzija tkun mibdula jew danneġġata wara li tqiegħdet fis-suq.”

(19)  – Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases (OJ 1996 L 77, p. 20). Article 5(c) of Directive 96/9 provides that the ‘first sale in the [European Union] of a copy of the database by the rightholder or with his consent shall exhaust the right to control resale of that copy within the [European Union]’.

(19)  – Direttiva 96/9/KE tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill, tal-11 ta’ Marzu 1996, dwar il-protezzjoni legali ta’ databases (ĠU Edizzjoni Speċjali bil-Malti, Kapitolu 13, Vol. 15, p. 459). It-tieni sentenza tal-Artikolu 5(c) tad-Direttiva 96/9 jipprovdi li “[l]-ewwel bejgħ ta’ kopja ta’ database fl-[Unjoni] mid-detentur tad-dritt, jew bil-kunsens tiegħu, jeżawrixxi d-dritt li jikkontrolla l-bejgħ mill-ġdid ta’ dik il-kopja fl-[Unjoni]”.

(20)  – Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights (OJ 1994 L 227, p. 1, and – corrigendum – OJ 2001 L 111, p. 31). Article 16 of Regulation No 2100/94 provides:

(20)  – Regolament tal-Kunsill (KE) Nru 2100/94, tas-27 ta’ Lulju 1994, dwar drittijiet ta’ varjetajiet ta’ pjanti fil-Komunità (ĠU Edizzjoni Speċjali bil-Malti, Kapitolu 16, Vol. 3, p. 390, u – rettifikattiv – ĠU 2001, L 111, p. 31). L-Artikolu 16 tar-Regolament Nru 2100/94 j ipprovdi:

‘The Community plant variety right shall not extend to acts concerning any material of the protected variety, or of a variety covered by the provisions of Article 13(5), which has been disposed of to others by the holder or with his consent, in any part of the [European Union], or any material derived from the said material, unless such acts:

“Id-drittijiet tal-Komunità tal-varjetajiet ta’ pjanti m’għandhomx ikunu jestendu għall-atti li jikkonċernaw kull materjal tal-varjetajiet protetti [...] li jkun ġie mogħti lill-oħrajn mid-detentur jew bil-kunsens tiegħu, f’kull parti tal-Komunità, jew kull materjal meħud mill-imsemmi materjal, sakemm dawk l-atti:

(a) involve further propagation of the variety in question, except where such propagation was intended when the material was disposed of

a) jinvolvu aktar propagazzjoni tal-varjetajiet in kwistjoni, ħlief meta dik il-propagazzjoni kienet intiża meta l-materjal kien ġie mogħti

or

jew

(b) involve an export of variety constituents into a third country which does not protect varieties of the plant genus or species to which the variety belongs, except where the exported material is for final consumption purposes.’

b) jinvolvi l-esportazzjoni ta’ kostitwenti tal-varjetajiet f’pajjiż terż li ma jipproteġix varjetajiet tal-ġeneru tal-pjanti jew ta’ l-ispeċi li għalihom tkun tappartjeni l-varjetà, ħlief meta l-materjal esportat ikun għall-għanijiet ta’ konsum finali.”

(21)  – Article 1(4) of Directive 92/100 provides that ‘the rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall not be exhausted by any sale or other act of distribution of originals and copies of copyright works and other subject-matter as set out in Article 2(1)’.

(21)  – L-Artikolu 1(4) tad-Direttiva 92/100 jipprovdi li “[i]d-drittijiet imsemmija fil-paragrafu 1 m’għandhomx ikunu eżawriti b’ebda bejgħ jew att ieħor ta’ distribuzzjoni ta’ oriġinali u kopji ta’ xogħlijiet bid-drittijiet ta’ l-awtur u suġġett ieħor kif stipulat fl-Artikolu 2(1)”.

(22)  – See Bräutigam, P., ‘Second-hand software in Europe: thoughts on the three questions of the German Federal Court of Justice referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union’, Computer Law Review International , 1/2012, p. 1, and Overdijk, T., van der Putt, P., de Vries, E., and Schafft, T., ‘Exhaustion and Software Resale Rights’, Computer Law Review International , 2/2011, p. 33.

(22)  – Ara Bräutigam, P., “Second-hand software in Europe: thoughts on the three questions of the German Federal Court of Justice referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union”, Computer Law Review International, 1/2012, p. 1, u Overdijk, T., van der Putt, P., de Vries, E., u Schafft, T., “Exhaustion and Software Resale Rights”, Computer Law Review International, 2/2011, p. 33.

(23)  – See Frankel, S., and Harvey, L., ‘Will the digital era sound the death knell for the first sale doctrine in US copyright law?’, Intellectual Property Magazine , March 2011, p. 40.

(23)  – Ara Frankel, S., u Harvey, L., “Will the digital era sound the death knell for the first sale doctrine in US copyright law?”, Intellectual Property Magazine, Marzu 2011, p. 40.

(24)  – See in particular Strowel, A., and Derclaye, E., Droit d’auteur et numérique: logiciels, bases de données, multimédia – Droit belge, européen et comparé , Bruylant, Brussels, 2001. See also Vivant, M., ‘Le programme d’ordinateur au pays des muses; observations sur la directive du 14 mai 1991’, La semaine juridique – Édition entreprise , 1991, No 47, p. 479. This author criticises ‘the inability of the authors [of the directive] to distinguish conceptually between the intellectual creation and the medium’ (point 16.2, p. 484).

(24)  – Ara, b’mod partikolari, Strowel, A., u Derclaye, E., Dritt d’auteur et numérique: softwares, bases de données, multimédia – Dritt belge, européen et comparé, Bruylant, Brussell, 2001. Ara, ukoll, Vivant, M., “Le programme d’ordinateur au pays des muses; observations sur la directive du 14 mai 1991”, La semaine juridique – Édition entreprise, 1991, Nru°47, p. 479. Dan l-awtur jikkritika l-“inkapaċità tal-awturi li jiddistingwu bejn il-kreazzjoni intellettwali u s-sostenn”.

(25)  – See to this effect Case C-246/05 Häupl [2007] ECR I-4673, paragraph 43 and case-law cited.

(25) – Ara, f’dan is-sens, is-sentenza tal-14 ta’ Ġunju 2007, Häupl (C‑246/05, Ġabra p. I‑4673, punt 43 u l-ġurisprudenza ċċitata).

(26)  – See to this effect Case C‑393/09 Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace [2010] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited.

(26)  – Ara, f’dan is-sens, is-sentenza tat-22 ta’ Diċembru 2010, Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace (C‑393/09, li għadha ma ġietx ippubblikata fil-Ġabra, punt 30 u ġurisprudenza ċċitata).

(27)  – Joined Cases C‑414/99 to C‑416/99 [2001] ECR I-8691.

(27)  – C‑414/99 sa C‑416/99, Ġabra p. I‑8691.

(28)  – Paragraphs 41 to 43.

(28)  – Punti 41 sa 43.

(29)  – In the sense that exhaustion occurs only in the event of sale.

(29)  – Fis-sens li l-eżawriment jiġi prodott biss bil-bejgħ.

(30)  – In the sense that the exhaustion following from sale does not permit further rental of the copy. See Czarnota, B., and Hart, R., Legal Protection of Computer Programs in Europe – A guide to the EC Directive , Butterworths, 1991, p. 60:

(30)  – Fis-sens li l-eżawriment li jirriżulta mill-bejgħ ma jawtorizzax l-kiri ulterjuri tal-kopja. Ara Czarnota, B., u Hart, R., Legal Protection of Computer Programs in Europe – A guide to the EC Directive, Butterworths, 1991, p. 60:

‘If sale is the first means of distribution which the rightholder chooses, he can now under the Directive not prevent the resale of the copy which he has sold. Property rights pass from the rightholder to the purchaser in the physical support of the copy of the program, and the purchaser is free to dispose of that tangible property in any way he chooses, except that he may not offer it for rental or licensing. He may, however, lend, give or otherwise dispose of the physical support.

“If sale is the first means of distribution which the rightholder chooses, he can now under the Directive not prevent the resale of the copy which he has sold. Property rights pass from the rightholder to the purchaser in the physical support of the copy of the program, and the purchaser is free to dispose of that tangible property in any way he chooses, except that he may not offer it for rental or licensing. He may, however, lend, give or otherwise dispose of the physical support.

The intellectual property rights of the author in the program contained in that physical support remain unchanged by any of the above transactions. His interests in the intellectual property are only affected when the sold copy is offered for rental, because the act of rental is a form of distribution which would be in direct competition with other forms of exploitation, such as sale of copies, and would therefore prejudice the rightholder’s ability to control the normal exploitation of his work.’

The intellectual property rights of the author in the program contained in that physical support remain unchanged by any of the above transactions. His interests in the intellectual property are only affected when the sold copy is offered for rental, because the act of rental is a form of distribution which would be in direct competition with other forms of exploitation, such as sale of copies, and would therefore prejudice the rightholder’s ability to control the normal exploitation of his work.”

(31)  – See Metronome Musik .

(31)  – Ara s-sentenza Metronome Musik, iċċitata iktar ’il fuq.

(32)  – See Case C‑456/06 Peek & Cloppenburg [2008] ECR I-2731.

(32)  – Ara s-sentenza tas-17 ta’ April 2008, Peek & Cloppenburg (C‑456/06, Ġabra p. I‑2731).

(33)  – See to this effect Dusollier, S., Droit d’auteur et protection des œuvres dans l’univers numérique – Droits et exceptions à la lumière des dispositifs de verrouillage des œuvres , Larcier, Brussels, 2007, Nos 529 and 530. This author describes the transaction as a ‘complex … form of contract’, which can be broken down into a contract for the sale of the data carrier or for the provision of services where it involves downloading or remote use, and a licensing agreement relating to copyright in the work which is incorporated in the data carrier or transferred electronically.

(33)  – Ara, f’dan is-sens, Dusollier, S., Droit d’auteur et protection des œuvres dans l’univers numérique – Droits et exceptions à la lumière des dispositifs de verrouillage des œuvres, Larcier, Brussell, 2007, Nri 529 u 530. Dan l-awtur jikklassifika t-tranżazzjoni bħala “forma kuntrattwali […] kumplessa”, li tista’ tinqasam f’kuntratt ta’ bejgħ ta’ sostenn jew ta’ provvista ta’ servizzi jekk ikun hemm tniżżil jew użu mill-bogħod u kuntratt ta’ liċenzja tad-dritt tal-awtur fuq ix-xogħol inkorporat fuq is-sostenn jew trażmess permezz ta’ mezz informatiku.

(34)  – See p. 18 of the report.

(34)  – Ara p. 18 ta’ dan ir-rapport.

(35)  – My emphasis.

(35)  – Enfażi tiegħi.

(36)  – Paragraph 30 and the case-law cited.

(36)  – Punt 30 u l-ġurisprudenza ċċitata.

(37)  – See recital 15 in the preamble to that directive.

(37)  – Ara l-premessa 15 ta’ din id-direttiva.

(38)  – I do not see how it can be inferred from that judgment concerning graphic user interfaces that the right to make a work available to the public as referred to in Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 is applicable to computer programs when the Court has specifically stated that graphic user interfaces do not constitute a form of expression of a computer program.

(38)  – Jiena ma narax kif jista’ jiġi dedott minn din is-sentenza dwar l-interfaces li jużaw il-grafika li d-dritt ta’ tqegħid għad-dispożizzjoni msemmi fl-Artikolu 3(1) tad-Direttiva 2001/29 għandu jkun applikabbli għall-programmi tal-kompjuter meta l-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja ddikjarat speċifikament li l-interfaces li jużaw il-grafika ma jikkostitwixxux forma ta’ espressjoni ta’ programm ta’ kompjuter.

(39)  – See point 69 of this Opinion.

(39)  – Ara l-punt 69 ta’ dawn il-konklużjonijiet.

(40)  – My emphasis.

(40) – Enfażi tiegħi.

(41)  – See to this effect recital 18 in the preamble to Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1).

(41)  – Ara, f’dan is-sens, il-premessa 18 tad-Direttiva 2000/31/KE tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill, tat-8 ta’ Ġunju 2000, dwar ċerti aspetti legali tas-servizzi minn soċjetà tal-informazzjoni, partikolarment il-kummerċ elettroniku, fis-Suq Intern (“Direttiva dwar il-kummerċ elettroniku”), (ĠU Edizzjoni Speċjali bil-Malti, Kapitolu 13, Vol. 25, p. 399).

(42)  – Case C-143/00 Boehringer Ingelheim [2002] ECR I-3759, paragraph 28, and Joined Cases C‑403/08 and C-429/08 Football Association Premier League and Others [2011] ECR I-0000, paragraph 106 and case-law cited.

(42) – Ara sentenzi tat-23 ta’ April 2002, Boehringer Ingelheim et (C‑143/00, Ġabra p. I-3759, punt 28), kif ukoll tal-4 ta’ Ottubru 2011, Football Association Premier League et (C‑403/08 u C‑429/08, li għadha ma ġietx ippubblikata fil-Ġabra, punt 106 u l-ġurisprudenza ċċitata).

(43)  – Football Association Premier League and Others , paragraphs 106 to 109 and the case-law cited.

(43)  – Sentenza Football Association Premier League et , iċċitata iktar ’il fuq (punti 106 sa 109 kif ukoll il-ġurisprudenza ċċitata).

(44)  – Paragraphs 115 and 116.

(44)  – Ibidem (punti 115 u 116).

(45)  – It should also be pointed out that, in the Commission Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 11 January 2012 on a coherent framework for building trust in the Digital Single Market for e-commerce and online services, the Commission states that it will take action to ‘ensure that the European strategy for intellectual property rights is implemented rapidly and ambitiously, in particular by … the review of [Directive 2001/29]’ (see point 2 of the main actions, p. 8).

(45)  – Għandu għalhekk jiġi osservat li, fil-Komunikazzjoni tal-Kummissjoni lill-Parlament Ewropew, lill-Kunsill, lill-Kumitat Ekonomiku u Soċjali Ewropew u lill-Kumitat tar-Reġjuni, tal-11 ta’ Jannar 2012, dwar qafas koerenti għall-bini ta’ fiduċja fis-Suq Uniku Diġitali tal-kummerċ elettroniku u tas-servizzi online [COM(2011) 942 finali], il-Kummissjoni tindika li hija ser tibda azzjoni sabiex “tiżgura l-implimentazzjoni mħaffa u ambizzjuża tal-Istrateġija Ewropea dwar id-drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali, partikolarment permezz ta’ [...] reviżjoni tad-[Direttiva 2001/29]” (ara l-punt 2 tal-Azzjonijiet Ewlenin, p. 8).