Editor's note: 2011 years, Spain has abolished a legal requirement to compensate copyright owners through taxation for the damage caused by the unauthorized reproduction of works protected by copyright law by other natural persons, The state budget shall bear the above fair compensation expenses. After the law was introduced, The Spanish copyright collective filed a lawsuit with the Administrative Disputes Chamber of Spain's Supreme Court, The law was annulled. Read on for more details!

[background]

2011 years, Spain has abolished a legal requirement to compensate copyright owners through taxation for the damage caused by the unauthorized reproduction of works protected by copyright law by other natural persons, And implement new policies, That is, the state budget should bear the above fair compensation expenses. After the law was introduced, The Spanish copyright collective filed a lawsuit with the Administrative Disputes Chamber of Spain's Supreme Court, Asking the court to argue that the law is in conflict with the relevant provisions of the European Union law, The law was annulled. Plaintiff's cause of action states, The principle established in previous cases of the Court of Justice of the European Union is that the natural person who carries out the private copying act should bear the fair compensation cost. But Spain's controversial law does not follow that principle, Instead, it provides for fair compensation costs to be borne by all taxpayers without distinction.

Spain's Supreme Court decided to suspend the proceedings, The Court of Justice of the European Union is requested to make a preliminary ruling on the following issues: If a law says, In each fiscal year, Set a budget limit and the state budget to cover the cost of fair compensation for the current year, It could not be ascertained that the cost was ultimately borne by the natural person who carried out the private copying act, So does the law say yes or no "Eu directive on harmonization of copyright-related norms and rights related to the information Society (The first 2001/19/EC No) " (Hereinafter referred to as " "European Union regulation 2001/19/EC Number instruction" " ) The first 5 article 2 paragraph (b) Stipulation of?

[result]

The Court of Justice of the European Union first pointed out, The state budget to bear the cost of fair compensation itself does not violate the provisions of EU law. but, This provision must comply with the principles established in previous jurisprudence, That is, only natural persons can bear the liability for fair compensation costs, Because only natural people can benefit from private copying. but, It is allowed to stipulate that the legal person should first pay the relevant fair compensation expenses, As long as the cost can eventually be transferred to the natural person performing the private copying act to bear. The Court of Justice of the European Union held that, The Spanish law at issue does not specify how this particular expenditure should be allocated, Using the state budget to bear the cost of fair compensation means that all taxpayers——Including legal person——Undertake this obligation, And there is no wrong "European Union regulation 2001/19/EC Number instruction" The first 5 article 2 paragraph (b) The specified obligor applies for avoiding the obligation or requesting the return of the overpaid fees to provide effective measures. Therefore, The Court of Justice of the European Union held that, Similar to the rules in Spain——The cost of fair compensation for private copying shall be borne by the state budget, It should be deemed to be in violation of relevant EU laws, namely "European Union regulation 2001/19/EC Number instruction" The first 5 article 2 paragraph b Stipulation of.

[comment]

The European Union ruled that "Spanish law determines whether the state budget should bear the cost of fair compensation in accordance with EU law" A series of arguments and rulings brought to an end. In fact, Before the law is officially promulgated, There has been much talk, There is an endless debate. It's worth noting, Court of Justice of the European Union 2010 years 10 month 21 diurnal Padawan case (Case number: C-467/08) adjudication, Have been matched 2011 A detailed analysis has been made of the Spanish tax subsidy fair compensation cost regulation that came into effect in 2005, Found that the Spanish provision did not guarantee fair compensation to the natural person who ultimately carried out and benefited from the private copying act. It followed a series of rulings by European courts in similarly controversial cases (Stichtingde Thuiskopie case (Case number: C-462/09) , Amazon International case (Case number: C-521/11) , and Copydan case (Case number: C-463/12) Etc) It only underlines that Spain's attempt to compensate is doomed to failure.

compile: Liu Dan, Esabarry Legal Counsel

source: Esabaril (ELZABURU) Intellectual property rights