EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62014CN0470

Case C-470/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from Tribunal Supremo — Sala Tercera Contencioso-Administrativo (Spain) lodged on 14 October 2014  — Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA) and Others v Administración del Estado and Others

IO C 7, 12.1.2015, p. 13–14 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

12.1.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/13


Request for a preliminary ruling from Tribunal Supremo — Sala Tercera Contencioso-Administrativo (Spain) lodged on 14 October 2014 — Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA) and Others v Administración del Estado and Others

(Case C-470/14)

(2015/C 007/18)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo, Sala Tercera Contencioso-Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA), Derechos de Autor de Medios Audiovisuales (DAMA) and Visual Entidad de Gestión de Artistas Plásticos (VEGAP)

Defendants: Administración del Estado, Asociación Multisectorial de Empresas de la Electrónica, las Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación, de las Telecomunicaciones y de los contenidos Digitales (AMETIC), Entidad de Gestión, Artistas, Intérpretes o Ejecutantes y Sociedad de Gestión de España (AIE), Asociación de Gestión de Derechos Intelectuales (AGEDI), Sociedad General de Autores y Editores (SGAE), Centro Español de Derechos Reprográficos (CEDRO) and Artistas Intérpretes, Sociedad de Gestión (AISGE)

Questions referred

1)

Is a scheme for fair compensation for private copying compatible with Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 (1) where the scheme, while taking as a basis an estimate of the harm actually caused, is financed from the General State Budget, it thus not being possible to ensure that the cost of that compensation is borne by the users of private copies?

2)

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is the scheme compatible with Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 where the total amount allocated by the General State Budget to fair compensation for private copying, although it is calculated on the basis of the harm actually caused, has to be set within the budgetary limits established for each financial year?


(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.


Top