Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62019CN0637

    Case C-637/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea Hovrätt — Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 27 August 2019 — BY v CX

    OJ C 372, 4.11.2019, p. 19–20 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    Date of document:
    27/08/2019
    Date lodged:
    27/08/2019
    Author:
    Court of Justice
    Form:
    Judicial information
    Authentic language:
    Swedish
    Type of procedure:
    Reference for a preliminary ruling
    Link
    Select all documents mentioning this document
    Case affecting:
    • Submits a preliminary question about 32001L0029 article 3 paragraph 1
    • Submits a preliminary question about 32001L0029 article 4 paragraph 1
    Link

    4.11.2019   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 372/19

    Request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea Hovrätt — Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 27 August 2019 — BY v CX

    (Case C-637/19)

    (2019/C 372/21)

    Language of the case: Swedish

    Referring court

    Svea Hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Applicant: BY

    Defendant: CX

    Questions referred

    1.

    Does the term ‘public’ in Articles 3(1) and 4(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) 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 have a uniform meaning?

    2.

    If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, is a court to be regarded as falling within the scope of the term ‘public’ within the meaning of those provisions?

    3.

    If question 1 is answered in the negative:

    (a)

    in the event of communication of a protected work to a court, can that court fall within the scope of the term ‘public’?

    (b)

    in the event of distribution of a protected work to a court, can that court fall within the scope of the term ‘public’?

    4.

    Does the fact that national legislation lays down a general principle of access to public documents in accordance with which any person who makes a request can access procedural documents submitted to a court, except where they contain confidential information, affect the assessment of whether submission to a court of a protected work amounts to a ‘communication to the public’ or a ‘distribution to the public’?

    (1)  OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.

    Top