Judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 March 2024, Jamendo (C-10/22). Facts The judgment stems from the litigation between Liberi editori e autori (“LEA”) and Jamendo, in relation to the intermediation activity that Jamendo is carrying out in matters of copyright in Italy, allowing authors and rights holders to authorize the use of their musical works, especially in digital and commercial environments. LEA is a collective management entity that is taking action against Jamendo, an independent management operator (“OGI”) based in Luxembourg that has been operating in Italy since 2004. The dispute arises because, according to Italian regulations, the collective management of copyright was, in practice, reserved for entities authorized at the national level, which prevented operators established in other Member States from providing such services in Italy. LEA argued that Jamendo could not legally operate in Italian territory. Given the doubts about the compatibility of this national legislation with EU law, the Tribunale ordinaria di Roma referred a preliminary question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), focusing on the interpretation of Article 56 TFEU (free provision of services) and Directive 2014/26/EU on collective management of copyright and related rights. Rulings The Court of Justice of the European Union first analyzes whether Directive 2014/26 is the appropriate rule to apply in this case and concludes that, although Article 2(4) extends the application of certain provisions of that Directive to IGOs, it cannot be interpreted as obliging Member States to ensure that rights holders have the right to authorise an IGO. The Court then analyzes Jamendo's activity in light of Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which prohibits Member States from adopting measures that make it impossible, impede or obstruct the free provision of services by operators established in another Member State. The Court concludes that the activity of independent management operators constitutes a provision of services within the meaning of Article 56 TFEU, and therefore the national legislation governing their access to the market must respect the free provision of services. In this respect, by not considering less burdensome alternatives and opting for such a broad restriction, the Italian regulations violate Article 56 TFEU, as they impose a disproportionate limitation on the free provision of services. Thus, the Court makes it clear that Italy cannot reserve copyright intermediation solely to authorized national entities when this poses an unjustified obstacle to operators from other Member States. Commentary The Court of Justice's ruling is part of a consolidated line of jurisprudence that affirms the primacy of the fundamental freedoms of the internal market over national regulations that, in the field of intellectual property, generate exclusionary or protectionist effects. The Court recalls that the collective management of copyright, even when serving legitimate purposes of protecting rights holders, constitutes an economic activity subject to the requirements of Article 56 TFEU. From this perspective, the ruling is particularly relevant in defining the scope of Directive 2014/26/EU, clarifying that it does not impose on Member States the obligation to guarantee rights holders the possibility of authorizing independent management operators, but neither does it legitimize national restrictions that prevent such operators from accessing the market. In this way, the Court avoids an extensive interpretation of the Directive that could justify regulatory closures incompatible with Union law. Furthermore, the ruling has a clear practical application in the context of the digital and cross-border exploitation of protected works, where the existence of national barriers hinders the efficient granting of licenses. By reinforcing the principle of free provision of services, the CJEU fosters a more competitive and flexible environment, to the benefit of both rights holders and users. In short, the Court's ruling contributes to the harmonization of the European collective management market, while obliging Member States to review their regulatory frameworks to ensure that the requirements imposed on operators are truly proportionate and non-discriminatory, thus guaranteeing the balance between the protection of copyright and the effective functioning of the internal market. Mabel Klimt, Managing Partner of ELZABURU.

In the evolution of intellectual property legislation in Spain, Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996, of April 12, whose promulgation marks its 30th anniversary today, is a perfect example of the phenomenon that has plagued this discipline in recent times. We are faced with a system in constant revision, whose laws lack the most basic aspiration of any legal norm: durability. It is worth remembering that this is the Consolidated Text of the Intellectual Property Law, which repealed, barely nine years after its promulgation, the landmark Law 22/1987, of November 11; the latter, in turn, had ended more than 100 years of the reign of its predecessor, the historic Law of January 10, 1879. The 1987 Law would not prove to be so long-lasting. In its nine years of existence, before reaching its majority, the Law had undergone no fewer than five amendments to its articles and up to eight external legislative developments. It is therefore not surprising that the legislator opted for the well-worn formula of a consolidated text to try to harmonize and give an appearance of cohesion to the legal system. Nothing objectionable, of course. What is paradoxical, however, is that the 1996 Consolidated Text did not provide intellectual property with the veneer of stability (that is, legal certainty) that everyone expected. Because the truth is that the Consolidated Text, since its promulgation in 1996, has been subject to no fewer than 22 legislative reforms (to modify, repeal, or add provisions) and more than 11 regulatory developments. In this convoluted evolution, intellectual property has tasted, with or without enthusiasm, every possible recipe on the extensive menu offered by the national legislative landscape (Laws, Royal Decree-Laws, Legislative Decrees, Decrees, Ministerial Orders) and international legislation (WIPO/WTO Treaties and European Union Regulations/Directives). It has also been subject to corrective action through appeals for annulment before the Supreme Court, appeals of unconstitutionality before the Constitutional Court, and preliminary rulings before the Court of Justice of the European Union. It has lacked nothing. After the transposition of the latest Directive on copyright in the digital single market by Royal Decree-Law 24/2021, one might think we have entered a period of regulatory calm. But let's not be naive. On March 10, 2026, the European Parliament adopted a report entitled “Copyright and Generative Artificial Intelligence: Opportunities and Challenges,” which is essentially a call for European Union regulatory action in a field fraught with unknowns. So, the birthday present for the Consolidated Text of the Intellectual Property Law on its 30th anniversary could very well be the announcement of… new reforms! We'll be here to tell you all about it. Mabel Klimt, Managing Partner of Elzaburu

Judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 April 2024, Citadines (C-723/22). 1. Facts The judgment stems from a preliminary question raised by the Regional Civil and Criminal Court of Munich (Landgericht München I) in the context of the dispute between Citadines Betriebs GmbH (“Citadines”) and MPLC Deustchland GmbH b (“MPLC”), in relation to the communication to the public of an episode of a television series through televisions made available in the rooms and gyms of a hotel establishment owned by Citadines, for its customers to view it on free. To achieve this, the television signal was retransmitted within the hotel via an internally managed cable distribution system. MPLC is an independent, for-profit management operator representing audiovisual producers, who is taking action against Citadines requesting that the communication to the public of the episode referred to in the previous paragraph be stopped, the Regional Civil and Criminal Court of Munich issuing an order for provisional measures prohibiting the making of said episode available to the public. Following this action, Citadines filed an appeal with the Higher Regional Court of Civil and Criminal Affairs of Munich (Oberlandesgericht München), and MLPC responded by arguing that, despite Citadines having signed distribution license agreements with German collective copyright management societies, by retransmitting the signal through a cable distribution system of the establishment itself, it was violating the public communication right that it manages on behalf of the producers it represents. This doubt arises because the German Copyright Act (“UrhG”) divides the right of communication to the public, on the one hand, in its article 20b relating to retransmission; “The right to retransmit a work transmitted in the context of a simultaneous, unaltered and complete retransmission by means of cable or microwave systems (cable distribution) may only be exercised by a collective management society for copyright. This rule shall not apply to the rights exercised by a broadcasting organization in relation to its own broadcasts” and, on the other hand, in its article 22 relating to the communication of broadcasts; “The right to communicate broadcasts and to make them available to the public is the right to make broadcasts and to make such works available to the public through screens, loudspeakers or similar technical devices.” 2. Rulings In its preliminary question, the court asks whether Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC precludes a national practice which considers as communication to the public the provision of television sets in the rooms and gym of a hotel establishment when such televisions receive and retransmit the signal via cable distribution, even when there is a license for cable distribution subscribed with collective management entities. The Court recalls that, although it is for the national court to determine whether Citadines is carrying out an act of public communication, the CJEU provides the court with all the relevant elements of interpretation of EU law, and, in particular, states that: The mere making available of physical facilities (televisions) does not in itself constitute a communication to the public within the meaning of the Directive. The relevant question is whether there is an act that involves making a protected work available to a public (other than the original public of the transmission) through an act of communication. Regarding retransmission by means of a cable distribution system of the establishment itself, Directive 93/83/EEC (on cable distribution) defines and regulates this type of distribution act and distinguishes between the mere provision of a signal and acts which, due to their technical nature, can be classified as communication to the public. The existence of a license agreement with collective management entities for cable distribution does not in itself resolve the question of whether there is communication to the public in the European sense; that is, the contract is not enough: it is necessary to analyze whether there is an act of communication in accordance with Union Law. It is for the above reasons that the CJEU answers the preliminary question by determining that making available television sets installed in the hotel when, in addition, a signal is retransmitted to said televisions by its own cable, constitutes a communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC. 3. Commentary The ruling addresses a classic problem in European intellectual property law: the delimitation of the concept of “communication to the public” to the detriment of specialized technical cases. The Court reaffirms the doctrine according to which not every act of merely making available technical means (such as televisions) is considered communication to the public if there is no transmissive act that implies making works available to a public in an intermediate phase. This avoids an expansive interpretation of the exclusive right that could encompass activities with no real impact on the licensing market, which would be contrary to the balance between protection and access to the internal market. By distinguishing between the regime of Directive 93/83/EEC (cable distribution) and Directive 2001/29/EC (copyright), the CJEU delimits two functionally distinct areas: Cable distribution may be regulated contractually and authorized by specific licenses; but communication to the public requires a factual legal judgment on the nature of the act, beyond the existence of such a license. The Court rightly points out that the determination of the material facts (whether the specific conduct constitutes communication to the public or not) is the responsibility of the referring court. This falls within the classic separation of functions between the CJEU —which interprets EU law— and national jurisdictions —which apply those standards to the facts—. This ruling has a direct impact on the interpretation of exclusive rights in technical and digital environments, especially when the transmission...Read more

Madrid, April 7, 2026 – ELZABURU has been recognized in the 2026 Media Law International (MLI) ranking, achieving Tier 1 status in Spain for the services provided by its Media & Entertainment practice. It is the only firm specializing in industrial and intellectual property included in this category. Media Law International is one of the leading international directories in the legal field of the audiovisual and content sector, analyzing top firms in more than 60 jurisdictions based on qualitative research that assesses team capabilities, sector experience, and market positioning. This recognition highlights the positioning of ELZABURU's Media & Entertainment practice, which provides comprehensive advice to companies in the cultural and entertainment sectors. In 2025, the team managed more than 860 audiovisual and performing arts projects, a 169% increase over the previous year, mobilizing €18,2 million in tax-deductible investment in cultural projects, a 73% increase. Furthermore, this recognition is reinforced by the mention of Mabel Klimt, managing partner of ELZABURU and head of the Media & Entertainment practice, as Leading Lawyer, in recognition of her career advising agents in the audiovisual sector. In Mabel Klimt's words: “The Media Law International award reflects the consolidation of an area that has experienced remarkable growth in recent years and that responds to the increasingly complex and cross-cutting needs of the audiovisual industry.” This recognition strengthens ELZABURU's position in providing legal counsel to the audiovisual and entertainment sector, in a context marked by increasing regulatory complexity, the internationalization of productions, and the strategic importance of intangible assets in the cultural and creative industries.

Madrid, March 25, 2026 – ELZABURU has once again been recognized as one of the leading firms in Industrial and Intellectual Property in Spain by the international directory Legal 500, consolidating its position in comprehensive advice in this field. In this edition, the firm particularly strengthens its position in the area of ​​Trademarks and consolidates its presence in Patents and Copyright, three key pillars in the management and protection of intangible assets. Adding to this recognition is a particularly significant achievement: direct client feedback through the Client Satisfaction Index (NPS®), where ELZABURU achieves the highest levels. This result reflects not only the technical quality of the advice, but also differentiating aspects such as personalized service, agility, and the ability to deliver real value in every project. The Legal 500 directory also includes client testimonials obtained independently by its research team, highlighting the firm's work in various areas: Trademarks: “They have a thorough understanding of the client's inner workings and are known in the sector for their dedication to delivering the best possible service.” Patents: “They stand out for their years of experience, making them leaders in the sector. Their lawyers not only master the legal aspects but also understand scientific claims and design patent strategies tailored to our needs.” Copyright: “Mabel Klimt has many years of experience, professionalism, problem-solving skills, and practicality in addressing situations and difficulties presented by different projects.” At an individual level, Legal 500 highlights several professionals from the firm: Mabel Klimt, recognized as a Leading Partner in Copyright; Enrique Armijo Chávarri, recognized as a Leading Partner in Patents. Additionally, the following have been included in the various rankings by area: Trademarks: Luis Baz, Carlos Morán, Enrique Armijo, and Ana Donate. Patents: Enrique Armijo, Ruth Sánchez, Colm Ahern, Pedro Saturio, and Alba Mª López. Copyright: Mabel Klimt, Enrique Armijo, Carlos Morán, Alba Mª López, and Inés de Casas. This recognition highlights the strength of ELZABURU's team and its multidisciplinary approach to advising on industrial and intellectual property, as well as its ability to support companies in the protection, defense, and strategic exploitation of their intangible assets.

Madrid, March 19, 2026 – ELZABURU, a firm specializing in industrial and intellectual property, has been ranked in Band 1 in the “Patent & Trademark Agents” category of the prestigious British directory Chambers & Partners Europe. This category, created in 2021 to specifically analyze intellectual property agencies, provides benchmark information on the highest-rated lawyers and law firms whose legal services can be contracted in Spain. Elzaburu is the only Spanish firm to be ranked in Band 1 in this category. Elzaburu is also listed in the Spain: Intellectual Property category of Chambers Global, where three of its professionals have been recognized: Mabel Klimt in Copyright, and Enrique Armijo and Luis Baz in Trademarks. Furthermore, Elzaburu has been listed in the directory for 27 consecutive years since its founding in 1989, thus consolidating its position as a leading firm in industrial and intellectual property. These awards are the result of Elzaburu's commitment to excellence and innovation in Industrial and Intellectual Property. Elzaburu maintains an active litigation practice, which it complements with its renowned expertise in patent and trademark prosecution and management. Chambers & Partners is headquartered in London and publishes rankings and lists of legal entities and professionals. It employs over 200 editors in London, who conduct research and interviews in more than 20 languages ​​and publishes its rankings in over 185 jurisdictions.

Mabel Klimt, managing partner of Elzaburu, has been included among the 100 most influential women in the Spanish legal sector in the Magas ranking published by El Español. This ranking, compiled to mark International Women's Day, recognizes professionals each year who are contributing to transforming the legal sector and paving the way for new generations of lawyers. In the words of El Español: "She demonstrates how specialization and innovative firm management can go hand in hand with a forward-looking vision for the legal sector." This recognition has also been acknowledged by Todojuristas, which has included Mabel Klimt among the 100 leading women in the legal sector for the fourth consecutive year, an initiative that annually highlights professionals who drive change and challenge traditional paradigms in the legal profession. Leadership and transformation in the legal sector: At Elzaburu, Mabel Klimt has spearheaded a strategy based on specialization, innovation, and the firm's international expansion. Her career also places her among the few women holding top management positions in law firms in Spain, contributing to strengthening the presence of female leadership in the legal sector. This recognition highlights not only her professional career but also her ability to promote management and talent development models aligned with the new challenges of the legal sector. ELZABURU's Commitment to Equality: Mabel Klimt's inclusion in these rankings reflects ELZABURU's commitment to equality, where currently 74% of the staff are women. This commitment is also reflected in the partnership structure, where 30% of the partners are women. In this context, the firm received the Seal of Good Practices in Equality between Women and Men in the Legal Profession last year, awarded by the Madrid Bar Association, which recognizes organizations committed to promoting effective equality in the legal field. In the words of Mabel Klimt: “It is an honor to be part of this ranking and to share recognition with so many professionals who are contributing to driving change in the legal profession.”

Judgment of the Court of Justice of 10 July 2025, DADA (C-37/24) 1. Facts The judgment originates from a preliminary question raised by the Curtea de Apel București (hereinafter, the High Court of Bucharest, Romania) in the context of a dispute between the Uniunea Producătorilor de Fonograme din România (hereinafter, UPFR), a collective management entity representing phonogram producers, and DADA Music SRL, a Romanian radio broadcaster, in relation to the broadcasting of phonograms for commercial purposes. On October 20, 2011, both parties entered into a non-exclusive license agreement granting DADA Music the right to broadcast phonograms for commercial use, obligating it to pay equitable remuneration determined according to the current methodology. This methodology established remuneration based on the station's income or expenses, and also included a minimum lump sum remuneration in Roman leus (250 euros per quarter for local stations and 500 euros for national stations) as a guaranteed minimum amount. Law No. 74/2018, subsequently published, abolished the provisions relating to said minimum remuneration, effective ninety days after its publication, without providing for transitional measures or new calculation criteria. After it came into effect, DADA Music stopped paying the minimum amount, claiming the immediate application of the new regulations and limiting the payment to a remuneration proportional to its actual income. The UPFR argued that the previous methodology should continue to be applied until a new one was approved, arguing that the immediate elimination of the minimum violated Directive 2006/115/EC, Directive 2014/26/EU and Articles 17 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. On June 24, 2019, UPFR filed a lawsuit before the Tribunalul București (hereinafter, Bucharest District Court), against DADA Music. The Court, in its judgment of 28 January 2022, partially upheld the claim and ordered DADA Music to pay a symbolic sum, considering that, after the repeal of the provisions on minimum remuneration, it was only appropriate to pay an amount proportional to the income obtained. Both parties filed an appeal with the High Court of Bucharest, which decided to refer a preliminary question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter, CJEU) on the compatibility of Law No. 74/2018 with the right to fair remuneration recognized in Union law. 2. Rulings In its first preliminary question, the referring body asks, in essence, whether Articles 8.2 of Directive 2006/115/EC and 16.2 of Directive 2014/26/EU, in conjunction with Articles 17.2 and 52.1 of the Charter, preclude national legislation that does not guarantee a minimum lump-sum remuneration for phonogram producers for the broadcasting of commercially published phonograms. It also raises the question of whether this regulation can repeal, with limited effects in time, the provisions that established it, without modifying the calculation criteria or providing for a new method of determination. The CJEU declares that Article 8.2 of Directive 2006/115 imposes on Member States the obligation to guarantee artists and producers a fair and single remuneration for the broadcasting or communication to the public of phonograms, without setting out the form or the specific calculation criteria. For its part, Article 16.2 of Directive 2014/26 requires that the fees of collecting societies be fair and reasonable, leaving Member States a margin of appreciation for their practical application. On this basis, the CJEU considers that these provisions do not require the maintenance of a statutory minimum or lump sum remuneration, and therefore do not preclude a national rule that abolishes it, even immediately, provided that fair or adequate remuneration is guaranteed and the principle of proportionality is respected, preserving the essential content of the intellectual property right recognized in Article 17.2 of the Charter. The concepts of “fair remuneration” and “adequate remuneration” must be interpreted consistently, in accordance with the objectives of both Directives, which seek a fair balance between owners and users. The second preliminary question referred to the CJEU examines the role of the national judge in verifying the fairness or adequacy of the remuneration resulting from the internal system. The Court concludes that it is for the national judge to verify whether the remuneration retains its equitable character, taking into account elements such as the economic value of the use, its nature and scope, and the value of the service provided by the management entity. The Directives do not establish a single method for determining remuneration, but they require that the national system maintain a fair balance between the interests of licensees and those of users, so that the remuneration is neither insignificant nor disproportionate.  Furthermore, the CJEU recalls the principle of conformity interpretation, which obliges the judge to apply domestic law in a manner consistent with EU law. If this is not possible, the opposing national rule must be disapplied, by virtue of the primacy of Union law. All of this without the need for a prior declaration of unconstitutionality, provided that the legal system of the Member State recognizes the competence of the ordinary courts to guarantee such primacy. Consequently, the CJEU declares that it is for the national court to verify the fairness or appropriateness of the resulting remuneration, interpreting domestic law in accordance with Union law and, if that is not possible, leaving the national provision inapplicable. With regard to questions three and four, the Court specifies the guiding criteria that national courts may take into account when assessing the fairness or adequacy of the remuneration. Among them it mentions: (i) the economic value of the use of phonograms, considering the reach of the public and the benefit obtained; (ii) the nature, frequency and territorial extent of the use; (iii) the effectiveness of the collecting society in collection and distribution; (iv) comparable rates in ...Read more

Mabel Klimt, Enrique Armijo, and Luis Baz are once again featured in Chambers Madrid, February 13, 2026. – ELZABURU, a firm specializing in industrial and intellectual property, has been ranked in Band 3 in the Chambers Global Guide 2026, in the Intellectual Property category of the prestigious British directory. Elzaburu has been included in this ranking for 27 consecutive years, reinforcing its position as one of the leading firms in industrial and intellectual property. The firms included were selected based on independent research, recommendations from in-house legal professionals, and the opinions of other highly regarded lawyers in the field. Regarding the firm's professionals, Chambers recognizes Mabel Klimt in Band 4, in the Copyrights category; as well as Enrique Armijo in Band 3 and Luis Baz in Band 5, in Trademarks. Armijo has accumulated 15 nominations in the guide, Baz 9, and Klimt 8. These accolades are the result of Elzaburu's commitment to excellence and innovation in Industrial and Intellectual Property. Elzaburu maintains an active litigation practice, complemented by its renowned expertise in patent and trademark prosecution and management. Within this Chambers guide, the Intellectual Property division specifically evaluates teams and professionals working in copyright, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and other intangible assets, assigning them "bands" that reflect their level of excellence and global recognition in this area of ​​law. Chambers & Partners is headquartered in London and publishes lists and rankings of legal entities and professionals. It employs over 200 editors who conduct research and interviews in more than 20 languages ​​and offers its rankings in over 185 jurisdictions.

Madrid, November 13, 2025 – ELZABURU, a firm specializing in industrial and intellectual property, has achieved excellent results in the Best Lawyers in Spain awards, a professional recognition based on the consensus opinion of leading lawyers regarding the professional capabilities of their colleagues within the same geographic area and legal practice. With 35 lawyers and technical experts referenced and a total of 43 mentions, ELZABURU consolidates its position as the industrial and intellectual property firm with the most recognized professionals in this edition, thus reinforcing its leading position in the Spanish market. Regarding the individuals referenced in this year's edition, these are the ELZABURU professionals who appear in the ranking: Intellectual Property Law: Colm Ahern, Agustín Alguacil, Mónica Amores, Enrique Armijo, Cristina Arroyo, Luis Baz, Luis Beneyto, Catherine Bonzom, Ignacio Diez de Rivera Elzaburu, Alfonso Diez de Rivera Elzaburu, Cristina Espín, Mercedes García, Irene Gascón, Fernando Ilardia, Mabel Klimt, Xavier Lamíquiz, Miguel Ángel Medina, Carlos Morán, Tránsito Ruiz, Francisco J. Sáez, José Ignacio San Martín, Ruth Sánchez, Ana Sanz, Pedro Saturio, Rosa Torrecillas, Cristina Velasco and Manolo Mínguez. Litigation: Enrique Armijo, Alba Mª López, and Carlos Morán; Information Technology: Ruth Benito; Privacy & Data Protection: Ruth Benito; Technology Law: Ruth Benito; Communications Law: Mabel Klimt; Entertainment Law: Mabel Klimt; Competition: Carlos Morán. Regarding the Ones to Watch distinction, which recognizes lawyers in the early stages of their careers who have already demonstrated outstanding excellence in their legal practice, the recipients were: María Cadarso and Alberto Gallo in Litigation; and Inés de Casas, Sara Navarro, Paloma Querol, and, again, Alberto Gallo, in Intellectual Property. Best Lawyers employs a sophisticated, thorough, rational, and transparent survey process designed to obtain meaningful and substantive assessments of the quality of legal services. According to this organization, “the quality of a peer-review survey is directly related to the quality of the voters.”