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

Photograph by Olga Naydav on Unsplash

On 21 March 2024, the Courtroom 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 providers within the European Union (EU) alongside Collective Administration Organizations (“CMOs”).

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

Nonetheless, LEA v Jamendo SA will not be the start of unbridled competitors within the copyright administration realm. Relatively, it represents the CJEU’s attestation of the necessity for Member States to control the sector to keep away from favoring IMEs.

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



The case originated from a referral made by the Courtroom of First Occasion (Tribunale) of Rome, in regards to 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 providers 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-Regulation 148/2017 (‘Fiscal Decree’), subsequently transformed, with modifications, by Regulation 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 had 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 following Regulation 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 personal entities of a industrial nature. Throughout the legislative course of resulting in the brand new regulation this strategy confronted vital criticism from the Italian Antitrust Authority (‘AGCM’), which contended that such differentiation lacked any justification based mostly on compelling public curiosity associated to market functioning, and advocated as an alternative for the inclusion of IMEs. The AGCM opinion was finally disregarded and the regulation accredited as initially envisioned. As a consequence, overseas 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 could freely perform intermediation actions for copyright, for they don’t seem to be included within the checklist offered by Article 180 LdA.

In an try to bypass the obstacles created by the brand new Italian laws, Soundreef Ltd., a profit-making entity included underneath 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 underneath Luxembourgish regulation, claiming that the copyright intermediation actions the defendant carried out had 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 likelihood for authors to entrust the administration of their copyright and associated rights to a society of their alternative throughout the EU, thus forcing IMEs to enter into agreements with SIAE or with one other approved CMO. The Rome Courtroom, 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 Courtroom can due to this fact 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 contemplate different EU acts, such because the E-Commerce Directive ( ‘ECD’), Directive 2006/123/EC ‘on providers within the inner market’, and, lastly, the provisions of the TFEU.

For the AG, the ECD ought to have represented the place to begin, as Jamendo’s providers could have fallen underneath data society providers lined 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 underneath 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 Courtroom have decided that the ECD doesn’t apply to the claimant, the AG maintained that “its exercise ought to be handled as a “bodily” provision of providers and due to this fact, in precept, falling underneath Directive 2006/123”, which additionally prohibits restrictions to the supply of providers by entities from different Member States. Final, the AG noticed that the Italian laws could battle with Article 56 TFEU, which prohibits restrictions on the liberty to supply providers throughout the Union. He due to this fact prompt that Article 3(2) ECD, learn along side Article 16(1)-(2) of Directive 2006/123, ought to 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, in keeping 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 supply providers. This can be justified solely by compelling causes of public curiosity, offered it’s proportionate, which isn’t the case right here, for the reason that measure envisioned by the Italian laws exceeds what is important to guard copyright, thus violating EU regulation.

The Courtroom began its evaluation by noticing that the CRM Directive doesn’t harmonize the circumstances 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 any obligation for Member States to make sure that rightsholders have the appropriate to authorize an IME of their option to handle their rights.

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

In line with the Courtroom, Article 180 LdA, which restricts entry to the Italian copyright administration market to CMOs solely, should be evaluated in gentle of Article 56 TFEU, along side the CRM Directive. Because of this the constraints the supply imposes can solely be justified whether it is based mostly on compelling causes of public curiosity, and it’s proportionate and strictly obligatory to realize this aim.

Whereas a differentiated remedy could plausibly guarantee constant copyright safety, notably 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 important to realize this aim, thus conflicting with the precept established by Article 56 TFEU.

In consequence, the Courtroom concluded that EU regulation doesn’t enable Member States to indiscriminately and fully stop overseas IMEs from providing copyright administration providers in one other Member State. Nonetheless, this doesn’t stop nationwide legal guidelines from enacting particular further necessities to successfully shield copyright, offered that they’re appropriate for guaranteeing the success of this public curiosity aim, and don’t transcend what is important for the aim (see  C‑351/12, OSA).

LEA v Jamendo undoubtedly marks a decisive step in direction of the complete liberalization of the copyright middleman market throughout the EU. Nonetheless, the CJEU’s rising openness to the likelihood for Member States to introduce additional operational necessities for IMEs could result in additional fragmentation of nationwide options within the inner market, with totally different circumstances set in numerous international locations. Divergences in Member States’ approaches to IMEs and the circumstances set for his or her operation could 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 circumstances, obligations and restrictions could also be deemed suitable 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