Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

“Latvian Copyright”

Decision of the European Court of Justice (Second Chamber) 14 September 2017 – Case No. C-177/16

  • Decision • Unfair Trade Practices Law
  • European Union
  • Published:
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript
  1. 1.

    Trade between Member States is capable of being affected by the level of rates set by a copyright management organisation that holds a monopoly and also manages the rights of foreign copyright holders, with the result that Article 102 TFEU may be applicable.

  2. 2.

    For the purposes of examining whether a copyright management organisation applies unfair prices within the meaning of point (a) of the second paragraph of Article 102 TFEU, it is appropriate to compare its rates with those applicable in neighbouring Member States as well as with those applicable in other Member States adjusted in accordance with the PPP index, provided that the reference Member States have been selected in accordance with objective, appropriate and verifiable criteria and that the comparisons are made on a consistent basis. It is permissible to compare the rates charged in one or several specific user segments if there are indications that the excessive nature of the fees affects those segments.

  3. 3.

    The difference between the rates compared must be regarded as appreciable if that difference is significant and persistent. Such a difference is indicative of abuse of a dominant position and it is for the copyright management organisation holding a dominant position to show that its prices are fair by reference to objective factors that have an impact on management expenses or the remuneration of rightholders.

  4. 4.

    In the case where the infringement referred to in point (a) of the second paragraph of Article 102 TFEU is established, remuneration intended for rightholders must be included, for the purpose of determining the amount of the fine, in the turnover of the copyright management organisation concerned, provided that that remuneration forms part of the value of the services provided by that organisation and that that inclusion is necessary in order to ensure that the penalty imposed is effective, proportionate and dissuasive. It is for the referring court to verify, in the light of all the circumstances of the case, whether those conditions are met.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Author information

Consortia

Additional information

For more on this topic see the opinion by Frederick M. Abbott, “The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal’s Misguided Reprieve for Pfizer’s Excessive Pricing Abuse” in this issue of IIC at https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-018-0734-y.

Available at http://curia.europa.eu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Autortiesību un komunicēšanās konsultāciju aģentūra/Latvijas Autoru apvienība v. Konkurences padome Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Art. 102. “Latvian Copyright”. IIC 49, 880–881 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-018-0735-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-018-0735-x

Keywords

Navigation