November 14, 2024 DataBy DICOPO

Court of Justice confirms the vertical direct effect of Article 5(2)(a) and (b) of Copyright Directive

The Court of Justice has issued its judgment in Reprobel (C-230/23) concerns Copaco Belgium NV, a company incorporated under Belgian law. The entity is a distributor of IT products for businesses and consumers. Until 2016, Copaco was obliged to pay a flat-rate remuneration to Reprobel CV for the reproduction of works protected by copyright. The decision related to the direct effect, in particular clarifying the previous case-law of Hewlett-Packard Belgium. The referring court in this dispute has doubts as to the direct effect of Article 5(2)(a) and (b) of the Copyright Directive. The Court held that the collection of remuneration and the payment of fair compensation to the holders of copyright fall within the scope of a public interest mission. Thus, Reprobel has been granted powers that must be regarded as exorbitant in relation to the rules applicable in relations between private individuals. Moreover, the Court reaffirmed that the said provisions are unconditional and sufficiently precise. As such, the Court ruled that Article 5(2)(a) and (b) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as having direct effect, so that, in the absence of correct transposition of that provision, an individual may rely on it in order to prevent the application of national rules requiring him to pay remuneration for fair compensation imposed in breach of that provision.