Judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 March 2024, Jamendo (C-10/22).
Acts
The ruling 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 organization that has brought an action against Jamendo, an independent management operator (“OGI”) based in Luxembourg that has been operating in Italy since 2004. The dispute arose because, under Italian law, the collective management of copyright was, in practice, reserved for nationally authorized entities, preventing operators established in other Member States from providing such services in Italy. LEA maintained that Jamendo could not legally operate in Italy.
Given the doubts about the compatibility of this national legislation with Union law, the Ordinary Court of Rome raised 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 the Directive 2014 / 26 / EU on collective management of copyright and related rights.
pronouncements
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 failing to consider less burdensome alternatives and opting for such a broad restriction, Italian legislation infringes Article 56 TFEU, as it imposes a disproportionate limitation on the free movement of services. Thus, the Court makes it clear that Italy cannot reserve copyright intermediation solely to authorized national entities when this constitutes an unjustified obstacle for operators from other Member States.
Comment
The Court of Justice's judgment follows a well-established line of case law affirming the primacy of fundamental freedoms in the internal market over national regulations that, in the field of intellectual property, generate exclusionary or protectionist effects. The Court reiterates 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 especially relevant in defining the scope of the Directive 2014 / 26 / EUThe Court clarified that the Directive 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 expansive interpretation of the Directive that could justify regulatory closures incompatible with EU law.
Furthermore, the judgment has clear practical implications in the context of the digital and cross-border exploitation of copyrighted works, where national barriers hinder the efficient granting of licenses. By reinforcing the principle of free provision of services, the CJEU fosters a more competitive and flexible environment, benefiting 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.
