Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 7 June 2010 — Circul Globus București (Circ & Variete Globus București) v Uniunea Compozitorilor și Muzicologilor din România — Asociația pentru Drepturi de Autor — U.C.M.R. — A.D.A.

(Case C-283/10)

()

2010/C 234/40

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Circul Globus București (Circ & Variete Globus București)

Defendant: Uniunea Compozitorilor și Muzicologilor din România — Asociația pentru Drepturi de Autor — U.C.M.R. — A.D.A.

Question referred

Is Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 to be interpreted to the effect that ‘communication to the public’ means:

In the event that point (a) represents the correct meaning, does that mean that the acts, referred to in point (b), by which works are communicated directly to the public do not fall within the scope of that directive or that they do not constitute communication of a work to the public, but rather the public performance of a work, within the meaning of Article 11(1)(i) of the Berne Convention?

In the event that point (b) represents the correct meaning, does Article 3(1) of the directive permit Member States to make statutory provision for the compulsory collective management of the right to communicate musical works to the public, irrespective of the means of communication used, even though that right can be and is managed individually by authors, no provision being made for authors to be able to exclude their works from collective management?

(1)  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 (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).