Judgment of the Court of Justice (Fifth Chamber), Case C-762/19
The Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter the“CJEU”) has ruled, in Case C‑762/19, on the prohibition against any third party “extracting” or “reusing,” without the manufacturer’s authorization, all or a substantial part of the contents of the database.
The issue at hand concerns the compatibility of the operation of a specialized search engine with thesui generisright set forth in Directive 96/9, a matter that the Riga Regional Court has referred to the CJEU through two preliminary rulings, seeking to clarify, on the one hand, whether the display, in the list of results generated by a specialized search engine, of a hyperlink that directs the user of that search engine to a website provided by a third party—where the content of a database of job listings can be viewed—falls within the definition of “reuse” set forth in Article 7, paragraph 2(b) of Directive 96/9, and, second, whether the information derived from the meta tags of that website displayed by the search engine should be interpreted as falling within the definition of “extraction” set forth in Article 7, paragraph 2(a), of the aforementioned Directive.
To address these issues, we must first clarify the scope and purpose ofsui generis protection. The purpose of the sui generis right is to ensure the protection of a substantial investment in the creation, verification, or presentation of the contents of a database by granting the maker of that database the ability to prevent the unauthorized extraction or reuse of all or a substantial part of the contents, so that the person who took the initiative and assumed the risk of making a substantial investment may be rewarded for it.
It should also be noted that, pursuant to Article 7 of Directive 96/9, the protection of a database under the sui generis right is justified only if the gathering, verification, or arrangement of the contents of that database represent asubstantial investment from a quantitative or qualitative standpoint.
With regard to the criteria for determining whether a user’s act constitutes “extraction” or “reuse” within the meaning of Directive 96/9, “extraction” is defined as “the permanent or temporary transfer of the entire contents or a substantial part of the contents of a database to another medium, regardless of the means used or the manner in which it is carried out.” As for “reuse,” it encompasses “any form of making available to the public the entire contents or a substantial part of the contents of the database through the distribution of copies, rental, online transmission, or other means.” Both concepts must be interpreted to mean any act that consists of appropriating or making available to the public, without the consent of the person who created the database, the results of that person’s investment, thereby depriving them of the revenue that is supposed to allow them to recoup the cost of such investment.
The search engine at issue in this case allows users to search the entire contents of several databases simultaneously—including the plaintiff’s database—through a method different from that provided by the manufacturer of the database in question, thereby making that content available to its own users. By offering the ability to search multiple databases simultaneously, this specialized search engine allows users to access, on its own website, job listings contained in those third-party databases. In this way, users are provided with access to the full content of third-party databases through a method other than that intended by their creators.
In light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling is that Article 7, paragraphs 1 and 2, of Directive 96/9 must be interpreted as meaning that an Internet search engine specializing in searching the content of databases, which copies or indexes all or a substantial part of a database freely accessible on the Internet and then allows its users to search that database on its own website according to criteria relevant to its content, engages in “extraction” and “reuse” of that content, within the meaning of that provision, which the maker of that database may prohibit to the extent that such acts cause harm to its investment in the collection, verification, or presentation of that content—that is, provided that they pose a risk to the ability to recoup that investment through the normal exploitation of the database in question.
Author: Claudia Pérez Moneu