This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62009CA0431
Joined Cases C-431/09 and C-432/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 October 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium)) — Airfield NV, Canal Digitaal BV v Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (Sabam) (C-431/09), Airfield NV v Agicoa Belgium BVBA (C-432/09) (Copyright — Satellite broadcasting — Directive 93/83/EEC — Articles 1(2)(a) and 2 — Communication to the public by satellite — Satellite package provider — Single communication to the public by satellite — Persons to whom that communication may be attributed — Authorisation from copyright holders for the communication)
Joined Cases C-431/09 and C-432/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 October 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium)) — Airfield NV, Canal Digitaal BV v Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (Sabam) (C-431/09), Airfield NV v Agicoa Belgium BVBA (C-432/09) (Copyright — Satellite broadcasting — Directive 93/83/EEC — Articles 1(2)(a) and 2 — Communication to the public by satellite — Satellite package provider — Single communication to the public by satellite — Persons to whom that communication may be attributed — Authorisation from copyright holders for the communication)
Joined Cases C-431/09 and C-432/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 October 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium)) — Airfield NV, Canal Digitaal BV v Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (Sabam) (C-431/09), Airfield NV v Agicoa Belgium BVBA (C-432/09) (Copyright — Satellite broadcasting — Directive 93/83/EEC — Articles 1(2)(a) and 2 — Communication to the public by satellite — Satellite package provider — Single communication to the public by satellite — Persons to whom that communication may be attributed — Authorisation from copyright holders for the communication)
IO C 355, 3.12.2011, p. 3–3
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
3.12.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 355/3 |
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 October 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium)) — Airfield NV, Canal Digitaal BV v Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (Sabam) (C-431/09), Airfield NV v Agicoa Belgium BVBA (C-432/09)
(Joined Cases C-431/09 and C-432/09) (1)
(Copyright - Satellite broadcasting - Directive 93/83/EEC - Articles 1(2)(a) and 2 - Communication to the public by satellite - Satellite package provider - Single communication to the public by satellite - Persons to whom that communication may be attributed - Authorisation from copyright holders for the communication)
2011/C 355/03
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Hof van beroep te Brussel
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellants: Airfield NV, Canal Digitaal BV (C-431/09), Airield NV (C-432/09)
Respondents: Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (Sabam) (C-431/09), Agicoa Belgium BVBA (C-432/09)
Re:
References for a preliminary ruling — Hof van beroep te Brussel — Interpretation of Article 1(2)(a) and (b) and Article 2 of Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission (OJ 1993 L 248, p. 15) — Exclusive right of the author to authorise communication of his works — Transmission by a broadcasting organisation of programme-carrying signals to a digital television supplier via an independent satellite — Subsequent retransmission of those signals — Authorisation of the copyright holders
Operative part of the judgment
Article 2 of Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission must be interpreted as requiring a satellite package provider to obtain authorisation from the right holders concerned for its intervention in the direct or indirect transmission of television programmes, such as the transmission at issue in the main proceedings, unless the right holders have agreed with the broadcasting organisation concerned that the protected works will also be communicated to the public through that provider, on condition, in the latter situation, that the provider’s intervention does not make those works accessible to a new public.