LEA v Jamendo SA: an actual liberalization of the EU marketplace for the collective administration of copyright? Defend Cyber

Picture by Olga Naydav on Unsplash

On 21 March 2024, the Court docket of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued its ruling in case C-10/22 Liberi Autori ed Editori (LEA) v. Jamendo SA.

The choice confirms that Unbiased Administration Entities (“IMEs”) can present their copyright administration companies within the European Union (EU) alongside Collective Administration Organizations (“CMOs”).

Nationwide laws in a single Member State that completely prohibits IMEs established in one other Member State from working within the former lacks justification and proportionality. It’s subsequently incompatible with Union regulation, and constitutes a restriction on the liberty to offer companies infringing Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”).

Nonetheless, LEA v Jamendo SA just isn’t the start of unbridled competitors within the copyright administration realm. Somewhat, it represents the CJEU’s attestation of the necessity for Member States to manage the sector to keep away from favoring IMEs.

Actually, the Court docket clarifies that the massive discrepancy between the obligations imposed on IMEs and CMOs, in line with Directive 2014/26/EU on collective rights administration (CRM Directive), may hurt copyright safety. To stop this, Member States can topic IMEs’ actions to explicit regulatory necessities, if this proves essential to ensure a constant and systematic safeguard of rightsholders.



The case originated from a referral made by the Court docket of First Occasion (Tribunale) of Rome, regarding the conformity of Italian laws with the CRM Directive. The query was whether or not the Directive prevented Member States from reserving entry to the marketplace for copyright middleman companies or the granting of licenses to customers solely to entities qualifying as CMOs, excluding these qualifying as IMEs.

The prelude to this ruling has been extensively mentioned on this weblog, with an evaluation of the Italian legislative framework (see right here)

Previous to the transposition of the CRM Directive by Decree-Legislation 148/2017 (‘Fiscal Decree’), subsequently transformed, with modifications, by Legislation no. 172/2017, Article 180 of the Italian Copyright Act (‘LdA’) granted SIAE (the Italian Society of Authors and Publishers) a monopoly over the collective administration of authors’ rights. Associated rights of performing artists and phonogram producers have been managed by Nuovo IMAIE (Institute for the Safety of Performers), AFI (Affiliation of Italian Phonogram Producers) and SCF (Consortium of Phonogram Producers). Whereas the unique LdA permitted different CMOs, however not IMEs, to enter the Italian market, the next Legislation no.27/2012 liberalized the associated rights marketplace for each CMOs and IMEs.

Actually, the reform of Article 180 LdA, prompted by an EC infringement process, resulted in solely a partial liberalization of the Italian market. This reform admitted solely non-profit CMOs like SIAE to the marketplace for copyright administration, excluding non-public entities of a business nature. Throughout the legislative course of resulting in the brand new regulation this method confronted important criticism from the Italian Antitrust Authority (‘AGCM’), which contended that such differentiation lacked any justification primarily based on compelling public curiosity associated to market functioning, and advocated as a substitute for the inclusion of IMEs. The AGCM opinion was finally disregarded and the regulation authorised as initially envisioned. As a consequence, international IMEs have been unable to function in Italy, since Article 20(2) of the Legislative Decree no. 35/2017 mandates reciprocal illustration agreements between such IMEs and the Italian CMOs, whereas it stays unsure whether or not Italian IMEs might freely perform intermediation actions for copyright, for they aren’t included within the checklist supplied by Article 180 LdA.

In an try to avoid the obstacles created by the brand new Italian laws, Soundreef Ltd., a profit-making entity included beneath British regulation, duly acknowledged as an IME by the UK Mental Property Workplace in 2016, sought illustration in Italy by getting into into an settlement with the newly established CMO, LEA. The British firm delegated the gathering of charges to LEA, which, as a non-profit group managed and managed by its members, was approved to function in Italy.

In 2014 SIAE filed a lawsuit towards Soundreef Ltd. for unfair competitors, alleging violation of Article 180 LdA.

The Rome Tribunal suspended proceedings and referred the case to the CJEU, looking for clarification on whether or not the CRM Directive prevented nationwide legal guidelines from reserving entry to the copyright intermediation market solely to CMOs. Nonetheless, the case didn’t attain Luxembourg, since SIAE withdrew all pending lawsuits after reaching an settlement with Soundreef Ltd. and LEA in 2019.

In 2022, LEA launched earlier than the Tribunal of Rome a request for injunction towards Jamendo, an IME working beneath Luxembourgish regulation, claiming that the copyright intermediation actions the defendant carried out have been illegal and anti-competitive, since Jamendo was not a CMO and didn’t meet the necessities to function in Italy. Jamendo responded by arguing that the Italian laws didn’t accurately transpose the CRM Directive, for it didn’t present for the chance for authors to entrust the administration of their copyright and associated rights to a society of their selection throughout the EU, thus forcing IMEs to enter into agreements with SIAE or with one other approved CMO. The Rome Court docket, by order of 5 January 2022, thought of the request for a preliminary ruling to be well-founded and referred the case to the CJEU, with an accelerated process.


The AG Opinion

The Advocate Normal’s Opinion, issued on 25 Might 2023, underlined how “no provision of Directive 2014/26 mentions the liberty of such entities (IMEs) with regard to entry to the market of copyright administration. That Directive solely enshrines, in its Article 5, the liberty of rightsholders to decide on between [CMOs], with out mentioning [IMEs]”. Consequently, “the reply to the query referred for a preliminary ruling as formulated by the referring Court docket can subsequently solely be destructive since [the CRM Directive] in itself doesn’t preclude Member States’ laws proscribing entry to the exercise of copyright administration.”

Nonetheless, the AG additionally emphasised the necessity to think about different EU acts, such because the E-Commerce Directive ( ‘ECD’), Directive 2006/123/EC ‘on companies within the inside market’, and, lastly, the provisions of the TFEU.

For the AG, the ECD ought to have represented the start line, as Jamendo’s companies might have fallen beneath info society companies coated by the Directive. Figuring out the character of Jamendo’s actions is prime as a result of Article 3(2) ECD prohibits Member States from proscribing the free motion of service suppliers established in different Member States, and the case at stake doesn’t fall beneath any of the derogations authorizing nationwide legal guidelines to intervene, as set out in Article 3(4) (i.e. public coverage, public well being safety, public safety or shopper safety). Ought to the referring Court docket have decided that the ECD doesn’t apply to the claimant, the AG maintained that “its exercise must be handled as a “bodily” provision of companies and subsequently, in precept, falling beneath Directive 2006/123”, which additionally prohibits restrictions to the supply of companies by entities from different Member States. Final, the AG noticed that the Italian laws might battle with Article 56 TFEU, which prohibits restrictions on the liberty to offer companies throughout the Union. He subsequently prompt that Article 3(2) ECD, learn together with Article 16(1)-(2) of Directive 2006/123, must be interpreted in order to preclude Member States from reserving copyright administration actions completely to CMOs, thereby excluding IMEs established in different Member States.


The CJEU judgment

The CJEU, consistent with the AG Opinion, dominated that nationwide laws prohibiting IMEs established in different Member States from working in Italy constitutes a restriction to the liberty to offer companies. This can be justified solely by compelling causes of public curiosity, supplied it’s proportionate, which isn’t the case right here, because the measure envisioned by the Italian laws exceeds what is critical to guard copyright, thus violating EU regulation.

The Court docket began its evaluation by noticing that the CRM Directive doesn’t harmonize the situations for IMEs to entry copyright administration actions, leaving a sure margin of discretion to Member States, throughout the boundaries dictated by the necessity to respect the TFEU. On this sense, there isn’t a obligation for Member States to make sure that rightsholders have the fitting to authorize an IME of their option to handle their rights.

Regardless of the referring Court docket limiting its query to the interpretation of a particular provision of EU regulation, the Court docket provided additional interpretative components. First, and opposite to the AG Opinion, the CJEU clarified copyright and associated rights administration companies don’t fall throughout the scope of both the ECD or Directive 2006/123/EC on companies within the inside market. Nonetheless, the Court docket states that the nationwide laws must be in line with the TFEU provisions on basic freedoms, in gentle of the truth that the case at stake touches upon a matter of inside market commerce.

In keeping with the Court docket, Article 180 LdA, which restricts entry to the Italian copyright administration market to CMOs solely, should be evaluated in gentle of Article 56 TFEU, together with the CRM Directive. Which means the constraints the supply imposes can solely be justified whether it is primarily based on compelling causes of public curiosity, and it’s proportionate and strictly essential to realize this objective.

Whereas a differentiated remedy might plausibly guarantee constant copyright safety, significantly in gentle of the truth that the CRM Directive imposes fewer obligations on IMEs in comparison with CMOs, the CJEU argued that absolutely the ban on IMEs finishing up any copyright administration actions exceeds what is critical to realize this objective, thus conflicting with the precept established by Article 56 TFEU.

In consequence, the Court docket concluded that EU regulation doesn’t permit Member States to indiscriminately and fully stop international IMEs from providing copyright administration companies in one other Member State. Nonetheless, this doesn’t stop nationwide legal guidelines from enacting particular further necessities to successfully defend copyright, supplied that they’re appropriate for guaranteeing the achievement of this public curiosity objective, and don’t transcend what is critical for the aim (see  C‑351/12, OSA).

LEA v Jamendo undoubtedly marks a decisive step in direction of the total liberalization of the copyright middleman market throughout the EU. Nonetheless, the CJEU’s growing openness to the chance for Member States to introduce additional operational necessities for IMEs might result in additional fragmentation of nationwide options within the inside market, with completely different situations set in numerous international locations. Divergences in Member States’ approaches to IMEs and the situations set for his or her operation might already be discovered, with some nationwide legal guidelines subjecting such entities solely to the necessities outlined in Article 2(4) CRM, and others being rather more incisive (e.g. Austria and Greece).  It stays to be seen what situations, obligations and restrictions could also be deemed appropriate with the bounds set by Article 56 TFEU. Absent particular pointers by the CJEU, the hope is that this gray zone of uncertainty is not going to create additional obstacles to the sleek growth of a aggressive EU marketplace for collective administration of copyright and associated rights.

Leave a Comment