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

Germany / Federal Court of Justice / I ZR 42/15

Coalition of German Collecting Societies (Zusammenschluss deutscher Verwertungsgesellschaften) v Company which produces, imports, and sells personal computers in Germany
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Federal Court of Justice
Type
Decision
Decision date
16/03/2017
ECLI (European case law identifier)
DE:BGH:2017:160317UIZR42.15.0

EU-stadgan om de grundläggande rättigheterna

Title III: Equality

Article 20 - Equality before the law

Title VII: General provisions

Article 51 - Field of application

VIEW FULL CASE
  • Germany / Federal Court of Justice / I ZR 42/15

    Key facts of the case: 

    The plaintiff, the Coalition of German Collecting Societies (managing copyrights on behalf of authors), sued a German computer company for selling personal computers with a built-in hard drive from 1 May 2005 to 31 December 2005. The plaintiff argued that these computers were technically capable to duplicate copyrighted audio and video files and, thus, fall under the obligation to pay copy machine levies according to copyright legislation. Therefore, the plaintiff took stepwise action, demanding 1) information about the number of computers sold from May to December 2005, 2) the declaration of the defendant’s duty to pay copy machine levies for the sold computers, and 3) the actual payment of remuneration.

    The plaintiff’s action was successful at a higher regional court; the defendant applied for revision.

    Outcome of the case:

    The revision was not successful.

    The Federal Court of Justice states that the higher regional court (Oberlandesgericht) had correctly held that the defendant has to remunerate the plaintiff for the possibility created by selling PCs that were technically fit and also meant to copy and reproduce copyrighted audio and audio-visual works according to Section 53 (1) and (2) of the Copyright Act (Urhebergesetz). This follows from Section 54 (1) of the Copyright Act. Additionally, the defendant has to hand over information which is necessary for the plaintiff to calculate the claim against the defendant according to Section 54g (1) of the Copyright Act.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    However, in interpreting Directive 2001/29/EC and the national law implementing it according to Article 51 (1) of the Charter, the fundamental rights set out therein must be observed. These include the fundamental right to equal treatment under Article 20 of the Charter (Federal Court of Justice, decision of 21 July 2011 - I ZR 30/11, GRUR 2011, 1012 para. 36 = WRP 2011, 1483 - PC II). According to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the principle of equal treatment requires that comparable situations must not be treated differently and that different situations must not be treated in the same way unless such treatment is objectively justified (CJEU, judgment of 18 July 2013 - C-234 / 12, GRUR 2014, 198 para. 15 - Sky Italia / AGCOM, ECJ, GRUR 2015, 478 para.  32 - Copydan / Nokia). It follows that the Member States cannot lay down modalities for fair compensation which would discriminate, without any justification, between the different categories of economic actors who are marketing comparable goods covered by the private copying exception or between the different categories of users of protected objects. (ECJ, GRUR 2015, 478 para. 32 and 33 - Copydan / Nokia). (para. 79)

    However, the fundamental right to equal treatment laid down in Article 20 of the Charter does not require that PCs with a built-in hard disk, which have been delivered to commercial customers according to the market data collected by a third party, are exempt from the obligation to pay under Section 54 para 1 of the Copyright Act. The principle of equal treatment does also not require that the relatively small proportion of private end-users of delivered PCs must be sufficient as a proof for a negligible remunerative use of sold PCs with a built-in hard disk and that, therefore, the obligation to pay remuneration according to Section 54 (1) of the Copyright Act must be denied. (para. 80) 

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    Allerdings sind bei der Auslegung der Richtlinie 2001/29/EG und des ihrer Umsetzung dienenden nationalen Rechts nach Art. 51 Abs. 1 Satz 1 EU-Grundrechtecharta die dort aufgeführten Grundrechte zu beachten. Zu diesen zählt das Grundrecht auf Gleichbehandlung nach Art. 20 EU-Grundrechtecharta (BGH, Beschluss vom 21. Juli 2011 - I ZR 30/11, GRUR 2011, 1012 Rn. 36 = WRP 2011, 1483 - PC II). Nach der Rechtsprechung des Gerichtshofs der Europäischen Union verlangt der Grundsatz der Gleichbehandlung, dass vergleichbare Sachverhalte nicht unterschiedlich und unterschiedliche Sachverhalte nicht gleich behandelt werden, es sei denn, eine solche Behandlung ist objektiv gerechtfertigt (EuGH, Urteil vom 18. Juli 2013 - C-234/12, GRUR 2014, 198 Rn. 15 - Sky Italia/AGCOM; EuGH, GRUR 2015, 478 Rn. 32 - Copydan/Nokia). Die Mitgliedstaaten dürfen daher keine Modalitäten für einen gerechten Ausgleich vorsehen, die dazu führen, dass verschiedene Kategorien von Wirtschaftsteilnehmern, die vergleichbare, von der für Privatkopien geltenden Ausnahme erfasste Güter vermarkten, oder verschiedene Gruppen von Nutzern geschützter Gegenstände ungleich behandelt werden, ohne dass dies gerechtfertigt ist (EuGH, GRUR 2015, 478 Rn. 32 und 33 - Copydan/Nokia).” (Rn. 79)

    Das in Art. 20 EU-Grundrechtecharta niedergelegte Grundrecht auf Gleichbehandlung gebietet es jedoch weder, PCs mit eingebauter Festplatte, die den von einem Dritten erhobenen Marktdaten zufolge an gewerbliche Abnehmer geliefert worden sind, ohne weiteres von der Vergütungspflicht nach § 54 Abs. 1 UrhG auszunehmen, noch folgt aus dem Gleichbehandlungsgebot, dass der nach einer solchen Erhebung relativ geringfügige Anteil an private Endabnehmer gelieferter PCs als Beleg für eine zu vernachlässigende vergütungspflichtige Nutzung der von ihr in den Verkehr gebrachten PCs mit eingebauter Festplatte genügen muss und deshalb eine Vergütungspflicht gemäß § 54 Abs. 1 UrhG  zu verneinen ist. (Rn. 80)