CJEU Case C-590/23 / Judgment

CG and YN v Pelham GmbH and Other
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
Court (Grand Chamber)
Typ
Decision
Decision date
14/04/2026
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2026:290

Title II: Freedoms

Article 11 - Freedom of expression and information

Title II: Freedoms

Article 13 - Freedom of the arts and sciences

Title II: Freedoms

Article 17 - Right to property

VIEW FULL CASE
  • CJEU Case C-590/23 / Judgment

    Key facts of the case:

    Reference for a preliminary ruling – Copyright and related rights – Directive 2001/29/EC – Information society – Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights – Article 2 – Reproduction right – Article 5 – Exceptions and limitations – Article 5(3)(k) – Concept of ‘pastiche’ – Use ‘for the purpose of’ pastiche – Reproduction of parts of a phonogram (sampling) – Fundamental rights – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 11 – Freedom of expression – Article 13 – Freedom of the arts – Article 17 – Right to property

    Outcome of the case:

    On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:

    1. Article 5(3)(k) of 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

      must be interpreted as meaning that the exception for ‘pastiche’, within the meaning of that provision, does not have a catch-all nature (Auffangtatbestand) but covers creations which evoke one or more existing works, while being noticeably different from them, and which use, including by means of sampling, some of those works’ characteristic elements protected by copyright, in order to engage with those works in an artistic or creative dialogue that is recognisable as such and that can take different forms, in particular the form of an overt stylistic imitation of those works, of a tribute to them or of humorous or critical engagement with them.

    2. Article 5(3)(k) of Directive 2001/29

      must be interpreted as meaning that, in order for use to be ‘for the purpose’ of pastiche, within the meaning of that provision, it is sufficient that the ‘pastiche’ nature be recognisable for a person who is familiar with the existing work from which the elements have been borrowed.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    45. As regards, third, the objective referred to in Article 5(3)(k) of Directive 2001/29, it is clear from recitals 3 and 31 of Directive 2001/29 that Article 5(3)(k) of that directive seeks to safeguard, in particular in the electronic environment, a fair balance between, on the one hand, the interest of the holders of copyright and related rights in the protection of their intellectual property rights and, on the other, the protection of the interests and fundamental rights of users of protected subject matter – and more specifically of their freedom of expression and artistic freedom, guaranteed by Articles 11 and 13 of the Charter – as well as of the public interest (see, to that effect, judgments of 3 September 2014, Deckmyn and Vrijheidsfonds, C‑201/13, EU:C:2014:2132, paragraphs 25 and 26, and of 29 July 2019, Pelham and Others, C‑476/17, EU:C:2019:624, paragraph 32).

    46. It is true that, as is clear from recitals 4, 9 and 10 of Directive 2001/29, that directive seeks to ensure a high level of protection of copyright and related rights by conferring, in Articles 2 and 3 thereof, exclusive rights of reproduction and communication to the public. Nevertheless, the right to intellectual property, enshrined in Article 17(2) of the Charter, is not absolute, but a balance must be struck between that right and other fundamental rights, including, inter alia, freedom of the arts, which is enshrined in Article 13 of the Charter and which falls within the scope of freedom of expression, itself protected by Article 11 of the Charter (see, to that effect, judgment of 29 July 2019, Pelham and Others, C‑476/17, EU:C:2019:624, paragraphs 33 and 34 and the case-law cited).

    ...

    55. In that regard, it must be recalled, first, that that technique, which consists in a user taking a sample from a phonogram, most often by means of electronic equipment, and using the sample for the purpose of creating a new work, constitutes a form of artistic expression which is covered by freedom of the arts, which is itself protected by Article 13 of the Charter (see, to that effect, judgment of 29 July 2019, Pelham and Others, C‑476/17, EU:C:2019:624, paragraph 35).

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)