CJEU Case C-37/24 / Judgment

DADA Music SRL and Uniunea Producătorilor de Fonograme din România (UPFR) v Asociaţia Radiourilor Locale şi Regionale (ARLR)
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Type
Decision
Decision date
10/07/2025
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2025:551
  • CJEU Case C-37/24 / Judgment

    key facts of the case:

    (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Approximation of laws – Intellectual property – Collective management of copyright and related rights – Directive 2006/115/EEC – Article 8(2) – Broadcasting and communication to the public – Directive 2014/26/EU – Second subparagraph of Article 16(2) – Licensing – Radio broadcasting – Concepts of ‘equitable remuneration’ and ‘appropriate remuneration’ – Criteria for assessing the equitable or appropriate nature – Article 17(2) and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Fundamental right to the protection of intellectual property – Scope and interpretation of rights and principles – National legislation repealing a system of minimum flat-rate remuneration)

    Outcome of the Case:

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

    1. Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property and the second subparagraph of Article 16(2) of Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in the light of Article 52(1) thereof,

      must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which does not guarantee minimum flat-rate remuneration to phonogram producers for the broadcasting of phonograms published for commercial purposes and which repeals, with effect from 90 days after its publication, the provisions relating to minimum flat-rate remuneration applicable to broadcasting established by a previously applicable methodology, without, however, altering the criteria for calculating remuneration and without providing for a maximum period for adopting a new methodology for quantifying the remuneration, provided that that legislation guarantees that the remuneration paid to rightholders is equitable or appropriate and that it complies with the principle of proportionality.

    2. It is for the national court before which a dispute has been brought regarding the equitable or appropriate nature of remuneration payable to rightholders for the broadcasting of phonograms published for commercial purposes, calculated according to the rules defined by national law, to verify whether that remuneration is equitable or appropriate within the meaning of Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115 and the second subparagraph of Article 16(2) of Directive 2014/26, that is, that it guarantees a balance between the interests of rightholders and those of the users of those phonograms. If the application of that legislation does not allow for such remuneration to be set, the provisions of those directives cannot be relied on to exclude that legislation, unless domestic law provides otherwise.
  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    32. By its first and second questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115, the second subparagraph of Article 16(2) of Directive 2014/26 and Article 17(2) of the Charter, read in conjunction with Article 52(1) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which does not guarantee minimum flat-rate remuneration to phonogram producers for the broadcasting of phonograms published for commercial purposes and which repeals, with effect from 90 days after its publication, the provisions relating to minimum flat-rate remuneration applicable to broadcasting established by a previously applicable methodology, without, however, altering the criteria for calculating remuneration and without providing for a maximum period for adopting a new methodology for quantifying the remuneration.

    ...

    48. As a result, criteria laying down equitable or appropriate remuneration must be defined in compliance with EU law. More specifically, Member States may not, so doing, disregard the Charter.

    49. In the first and second questions referred for a preliminary ruling, the referring court expresses clear uncertainties as to the compatibility of the rules for determining the remuneration of rightholders laid down in Law No 74/2018 – which repealed, with effect from 90 days after its publication, the provisions relating to minimum flat-rate remuneration applicable to broadcasting – with Article 17(2) of the Charter. Nevertheless, as regards the applicability of Article 17 of the Charter, it should be recalled that, under Article 51(1) thereof, the provisions of the Charter are addressed to the Member States only when they are implementing EU law.

    50. In order to determine whether a national measure involves ‘implementing Union law’ within the meaning of Article 51(1) of the Charter, it is necessary to determine, inter alia, whether the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings is intended to implement a provision of EU law (judgment of 5 May 2022, BPC Lux 2 and Others, C‑83/20, EU:C:2022:346, paragraph 27 and the case-law cited).

    ...

    52. In those circumstances, the Member State would be responsible for complying with the Charter, Article 17 thereof in particular, when implementing those provisions.

    53. In that connection, the Court notes that Article 17 of the Charter, which draws on Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, provides, in paragraph 1, that everyone has the right to own his or her lawfully acquired possessions and that no one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair compensation being paid in good time for their loss. The protection of intellectual property is mentioned expressly in paragraph 2 of that article on account of its importance, and the guarantees laid down in paragraph 1 apply, where relevant, to intellectual property.

    54. According to case-law, the right to equitable remuneration constitutes, in the European Union, a right related to copyright. It is, accordingly, an integral part of the protection of intellectual property enshrined in Article 17(2) of the Charter (judgment of 8 September 2020, Recorded Artists Actors Performers, C‑265/19, EU:C:2020:677, paragraph 85 and the case-law cited).

    55. As Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115 and the second subparagraph of Article 16(2) of Directive 2014/26 guarantee the right to remuneration of rightholders for use of their rights, national legislation such at that in the main proceedings which repealed, with effect from 90 days after its publication, the provisions relating to minimum flat-rate remuneration applicable to broadcasting is therefore liable to constitute a limitation on the protection of intellectual property rights enshrined in Article 17(2) of the Charter.

    ... 

    57. In that regard, Article 52(1) of the Charter allows limitations to be imposed on the exercise of rights such as those enshrined in the Charter, as long as the limitations are provided for by law, respect the essence of those rights and, subject to the principle of proportionality, are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the European Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others (judgments of 9 November 2010, Volker und Markus Schecke and Eifert, C‑92/09 and C‑93/09, EU:C:2010:662, paragraph 50, and of 5 May 2022, BPC Lux 2 and Others, C‑83/20, EU:C:2022:346, paragraph 51 and the case-law cited).

    ...

    59. First, it is common ground that the limitations on the exercise of the rights referred to in Article 17(2) of the Charter which the regime in the main proceedings entails are provided for by Law No 74/2018.

    ...

    62. Fourth, as regards the proportionate nature of the limitation on the right enshrined in Article 17(2) of the Charter in relation to the objective pursued by the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, it seems, first of all, subject to verification by the referring court, that the determination of remuneration payable to rightholders on the basis of broadcaster revenue alone is capable of achieving the objective pursued by the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, since it makes it possible to take into consideration the economic capacity of local stations.

    ...

    64. Last, regarding the proportionality stricto sensu of that legislation, in order to provide the referring court with information which will allow it to carry out such an assessment, the Court notes that a determination of the equitable or appropriate remuneration that must be paid to rightholders must take into consideration the economic value of the use of works in broadcasting. It is only under that condition that a fair balance between, on the one hand, the interests of holders of copyright and related rights in the protection of their right to intellectual property, enshrined in Article 17(2) of the Charter and, on the other hand, the protection of the interests of phonogram users may be guaranteed (see, by analogy, judgment of 29 July 2019, Pelham and Others, C‑476/17, EU:C:2019:624, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited).

    ...

    66. Having regard to the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first and second questions is that Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115, the second subparagraph of Article 16(2) of Directive 2014/26 and Article 17(2) of the Charter, read in conjunction with Article 52(1) thereof, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which does not guarantee minimum flat-rate remuneration to phonogram producers for the broadcasting of phonograms published for commercial purposes and which repeals, with effect from 90 days after its publication, the provisions relating to minimum flat-rate remuneration applicable to broadcasting established by a previously applicable methodology, without, however, altering the criteria for calculating remuneration and without providing for a maximum period for adopting a new methodology for quantifying the remuneration, provided that that legislation guarantees that the remuneration paid to rightholders is equitable or appropriate and that it complies with the principle of proportionality.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)