Help us make the FRA website better for you!

Take part in a one-to-one session and help us improve the FRA website. It will take about 30 minutes of your time.

YES, I AM INTERESTED NO, I AM NOT INTERESTED

CJEU - C-169/15 / Opinion

Montis Design BV v. Goossens Meubelen BV
Policy area
Internal market
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
Advocate General
Type
Opinion
Decision date
31/05/2016
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2016:383

Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea

Title II: Freedoms

Article 17 - Right to property

VIEW FULL CASE
  • CJEU - C-169/15 / Opinion

    Key facts of the case:

    Request for a preliminary ruling from the Benelux Gerechtshof (Benelux Court of Justice) - Copyright and related rights — Term of protection — Extinguishment and revival of copyright

    Results (sanctions) and key consequences of the case:

    Having regard to the foregoing arguments, I suggest that the Court of Justice answer the questions submitted by the Benelux Gerechtshof (Benelux Court of Justice) in the following terms:

    (1) Article 10(2) of Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonising the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights precludes a provision of national law under which there continues to be regarded as extinguished copyright in respect of an artistic work which, by reason of mere non-fulfilment of an administrative formality, had expired before 1 July 1995. It falls to the national court to verify whether, in the circumstances of the proceedings between private individuals being heard by it, it can interpret its law in accordance with the abovementioned directive and, if so, disapply the provision of national law.

    (2) Article 10(2), in conjunction with Article 13(1), of Directive 93/98 must be interpreted to the effect that any copyright that it affects revives on 1 July 1995.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter
    1. In any event, the Commission draws attention to the conflict with the Berne Convention of (the old) Article 21(3) of the BTMW and considers that to uphold the extinguishment (of copyright) deriving from the failure to make the declaration prescribed by that article of the BTMW is incompatible not only with the objectives of Directive 93/98 but also with the fundamental right to property, enshrined in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union (‘the Charter’), which extends to intellectual property. In short, it suggests that it be stated in reply to the referring court that Directive 93/98 applies, as from 1 July 1995, to copyright such as the copyright at issue in this case, which was extinguished for failure to fulfil a formal requirement.
    1. Finally, with regard to the possible direct application of Article 17(2) of the Charter, which covers intellectual property rights, a tenet to which the Commission has referred, (61) suffice it to say that the facts of the dispute date back to a time when the Charter had no binding legal effect. I consider therefore that it is superfluous to discuss whether that article of the Charter may confer, on private individuals, a subjective right within the meaning of the judgment in Kücükdeveci, (62) which might allow its application in a dispute inter privatos governed by Directive 93/98.
    2. The disputed national legislation — whilst it was in force — could not therefore infringe Article 17(2) of the Charter, which at that time had no legal effect. In any event, no possible infringement of property rights, by reason of the extinguishing effects of the formal requirement laid down by (the old) Article 21(3) of the BTMW, would likewise be imputable to the other party in the main proceedings.