Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62011CN0457

Case C-457/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 5 September 2011 — Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort) v Kyocera Mita Deutschland GmbH and Others

OJ C 362, 10.12.2011, p. 10–11 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

10.12.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 362/10


Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 5 September 2011 — Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort) v Kyocera Mita Deutschland GmbH and Others

(Case C-457/11)

2011/C 362/15

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort)

Defendants: Kyocera Mita Deutschland GmbH, Epson Deutschland GmbH, Xerox GmbH

Questions referred

The following questions concerning the interpretation 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 are hereby referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling:

1.

In interpreting national law, is account to be taken of the directive in respect of events which occurred after the directive entered into force on 22 June 2001, but before it became applicable on 22 December 2002?

2.

Do reproductions effected by means of printers constitute reproductions effected by the use of any kind of photographic technique or by some other process having similar effects within the meaning of Article 5(2)(a) of the directive?

3.

If Question 2 is answered affirmatively: can the requirements laid down in the directive relating to fair compensation for exceptions or limitations to the right of reproduction under Article 5(2) and (3) of the directive, having regard to the fundamental right to equal treatment under Article 20 of the EU Charter of Fundamental rights, be fulfilled also where the appropriate reward must be paid not by the manufacturers, importers and traders of the printers but by the manufacturers, importers and traders of another device or several other devices of a chain of devices capable of making the relevant reproductions?

4.

Does the possibility of applying technological measures under Article 6 of the directive abrogate the condition relating to fair compensation within the meaning of Article 5(2)(b) thereof?

5.

Is the condition relating to fair compensation (Article 5(2)(a) and (b) of the directive) and the possibility thereof (see recital 36 in the preamble to the directive) abrogated where the rightholders have expressly or implicitly authorised reproduction of their works?


(1)  OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.


Top