CJEU - Case C‑264/19 - Constantin Film Verleih
| CJEU - Case C‑264/19 Constantin Film Verleih GmbH v YouTube LLC and Google Inc. | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court: | CJEU |
| Jurisdiction: | European Union |
| Relevant Law: | Article 8(2)(a) Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights Paragraph 101 of the Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte — Urheberrechtsgesetz (Law on copyright and related rights) of 9 September 1965 |
| Decided: | 09.07.2020 |
| Parties: | Constantin Film Verleih GmbH YouTube LLC Google Inc. |
| Case Number/Name: | Case C‑264/19 Constantin Film Verleih GmbH v YouTube LLC and Google Inc. |
| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EU:C:2020:542 |
| Reference from: | |
| Language: | 24 EU Languages |
| Original Source: | AG Opinion Judgement |
| Initial Contributor: | annkathrin.a.dix |
The Court of Justice of the European Union held that the term ‘addresses’ does not cover IP addresses, telephone numbers, or email addresses in intellectual property infringement cases.
English Summary
Facts
Constantin Film Verleih, a film distributor established in Germany, had exclusive exploitation rights of the works ‘Parker’ and *‘Scary Movie 5’. In 2013 and 2014, these respective works were uploaded onto a platform, operated by YouTube LLC and its parent company Google Inc., which allows users to publish, watch, and share videos. As a result, these works have been viewed tens of thousands of times. Constantin Film Verleih requested that YouTube and Google provide it with the information pertaining to each user who uploaded the works in question, claiming that they had infringed upon its intellectual property rights. In particular, Constantin Film Verleih demanded the email address, telephone number and IP address of the users who uploaded the respective files. YouTube and Google refused to provide this information. Constantin Film Verleih started proceedings to obtain the information it sought. On 03 May 2016, the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Regional Court, Frankfurt am Main) dismissed the request. Constrain Film Verleih appealed the decision before the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Higher Regional Court, Frankfurt am Main). The Court partially granted the request and ordered YouTube and Google to provide the appellant with the email addresses of the users in question. However, it dismissed all other points. Constantin Film Verleih subsequently appealed this decision before the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice). The Court halted the proceedings and referred the matter to the Court for a preliminary ruling. In particular, it sought a clarification of the interpretation of Article 8(2)(a) of Directive 2004/48 to determine whether the information sought by Constantin Film Verleih fell within the term ‘addresses’ contained in the provision.
Holding
The Court held that the term ‘addresses’ contained in Article 8(2)(a) of Directive 2004/48 must be interpreted as excluding the email address, telephone number, and IP address of a user who uploaded files that infringe an intellectual property right.
Under Article 8(1)(c) of Directive 2004/48, Member States are obliged to ensure that the (relevant) judicial authorities can order information on the origin and distribution networks of the goods or services which infringe upon an intellectual property right to be provided by the infringer for proceedings related to such an infringement. Article 8(2)(a) of Directive 2004/48 states that the information mentioned in the aforesaid provision constitutes the names and addresses of the producers, manufacturers, distributors, suppliers, and other (previous) holders of the goods/services, including intended retailers and wholesalers. On the basis of Article 8 of Directive 2004/48, Member States must therefore ensure that the competent authorities, in such a situation, can order the operator of a platform to provide the names and addresses of the persons mentioned in paragraph 2(a) of said article, who uploaded a work onto the platform without the consent of the copyright holder.
Directive 2004/48 does not define the meaning and scope of the term ‘addresses’. It was therefore unclear whether the term ‘addresses’ contained in Article 8(2)(a) of Directive 2004/48 includes email addresses, telephone numbers and IP addresses of these persons. The Court firstly reiterated that the term comprises a concept of EU law. Therefore, it is warranted an independent and uniform interpretation across the European Union.
The Court had to apply various methods of interpretation to determine this. In everyday language, the term only refers to the postal address (i.e. place of person’s permanent address or habitual residence). It thus held that Article 8(2)(a) of Directive 2004/48 did not pertain to email addresses, telephone numbers or IP addresses. In addition, the term ‘address’ across different EU legal acts was not used in relation to email addresses, telephone numbers, and IP addresses. The Court further examined the interpretation of the respective term in the context of the purpose of Article 8 of Directive 2004/48 and the general objectives of the Directive. The respective EU legislation aims to strike a fair balance between protecting copyright holders’ intellectual property rights and safeguarding the interests and rights of users (and the public). Article 8 of said Directive seeks to reconcile different rights, including the right of copyright holders to obtain information and the right of users to have their personal data. Member States are not obligated to allow the (competent) judicial authorities to order the disclosure of email addresses, telephone numbers, or IP addresses in the context of intellectual property infringement cases. However, under Article 8(2)(a) of Directive 2004/48, Member States have the option to allow for this. The wording of Article 8(3)(a) of said Directive indicates that the EU legislature provided for the possibility for Member States to grant copyright holders broader access to information, as long as a fair balance is maintained among the various rights involved and compliance with (other) general principles of EU law.
Comment
Share your comments here!
Further Resources
Share blogs or news articles here!
