Phil Collins contra Imtrat Handelsgesellschaft mbH y Patricia Im- und Export Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH y Leif Emanuel Kraul contra EMI Electrola GmbH.

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Court: Court of Justice (European Union)
• Writing for the Court: Grévisse
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:1993:847
• Docket Number: C-326/92,C-92/92
• Date: 20 October 1993
• Procedure Type: Reference for a preliminary ruling

Judgment of the Court of 20 October 1993. - Phil Collins v Imtrat Handelsgesellschaft mbH and Patricia Im- und Export Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH and Leif Emanuel Kraul v EMI Electrola GmbH. - References for a preliminary ruling: Landgericht München I et Bundesgerichtshof - Germany. - Article 7 of the Treaty - Copyright and related rights. - Joined cases C-92/92 and C-326/92.

European Court reports 1993 Page I-05145
Swedish special edition Page I-00351
Finnish special edition Page I-00385

Summary Parties Grounds Decision on costs Operative part

Keywords

++++

1. Community law ° Principles ° Equal treatment ° Discrimination on grounds of nationality ° Prohibition ° Scope of application ° Copyright and related rights ° Inclusion

(EEC Treaty, Art. 7)

2. Community law ° Principles ° Equal treatment ° Discrimination on grounds of nationality ° Prohibition ° National legislation according to authors and performers the right to prohibit the marketing of phonograms produced from performances given outside the national territory and manufactured without their consent ° Right refused to nationals of other Member States ° Not permissible

(EEC Treaty, Art. 7)

3. Community law ° Principles ° Equal treatment ° Discrimination on grounds of nationality ° Prohibition ° Possibility for nationals of other Member States to avail themselves of that prohibition in order to benefit from the protection of literary and artistic property reserved to nationals

(EEC Treaty, Art. 7)

Summary

1. Copyright and related rights fall, by reason in particular of their effects on intra-Community trade in goods and services, within the scope of application of the Treaty, within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 7. The general principle of non-discrimination laid down by the first paragraph of Article 7 is applicable to those rights, without there even being any need to connect them with the specific provisions of Articles 30, 36, 59 and 66 of the Treaty.

2. The first paragraph of Article 7 of the Treaty must be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State from denying to authors and performers from other Member States, and those claiming under them, the right, accorded by that legislation to the nationals of that State, to prohibit the marketing in its national territory of a phonogram manufactured without their consent, where the performance was given outside its national territory.

In prohibiting "any discrimination on the grounds of nationality" Article 7 requires each Member State to ensure that persons in a situation governed by Community law be placed on a completely equal footing with its own nationals and therefore precludes a Member State from making the grant of an exclusive right subject to the requirement that the person concerned be a national of that State.

3. The first paragraph of Article 7 of the Treaty must be interpreted as meaning that the principle of non-discrimination which it lays down may be directly relied upon before a national court by an author or performer from another Member State, or by those claiming under them, in order to claim the benefit of the protection reserved to national authors and performers.

Parties

In Joined Cases C-92/92 and C-326/92,

REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Landgericht Munchen I and by the Bundesgerichtshof for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before those courts between

Phil Collins

and

Imtrat Handelsgesellschaft mbH,

and between

Patricia Im- und Export Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH

Leif Emanuel Kraul

and

EMI Electrola GmbH,

on the interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 7 of the EEC Treaty,

THE COURT,

composed of: O. Due, President, F. Mancini, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida and D.A.O. Edward (Presidents of Chambers), R. Joliet, F.A. Schockweiler, F. Grévisse, M. Zuleeg and J.L. Murray, Judges,

Advocate General: F.G. Jacobs,

Registrar: L. Hewlett,

after considering the written observations submitted

in Case C-92/92 on behalf of:

° Phil Collins, by Ulrike Hundt-Neumann, Rechtsanwalt, Hamburg,

° Imtrat, by Sabine Rojahn, Rechtsanwalt, Munich,

° the German Government, by Claus-Dieter Quassowski, Regierungsdirektor at the Federal Ministry of the Economy, assisted by Alfred Dittrich, Regierungsdirektor at the Federal Ministry of Justice, acting as Agents,

° the United Kingdom, by John E. Collins, of the Treasury Solicitor' s Department, and by Nicholas Paines, Barrister, acting as Agents,

° the Commission of the European Communities, by Henri Étienne, Principal Legal Adviser and Pieter van Nuffel, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents,

in Case C-326/92 on behalf of:

° EMI Electrola, by Hartwig Ahlberg, Rechtsanwalt, Hamburg,

° Patricia GmbH and Mr Kraul, by Rudolf Nirk, Rechtsanwalt before the Bundesgerichtshof,

° the German Government, by Claus-Dieter Quassowski, Regierungsdirektor at the Federal Ministry of the Economy and Alfred Dittrich, Regierungsdirektor at the Federal Ministry of Justice, acting as Agents,

° the Commission of the European Communities, by Henri Étienne, Principal Legal Adviser and Pieter van Nuffel, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents,

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of Phil Collins, Imtrat, represented by Sabine Rojahn and Kukuk, Rechtsanwaelte, Munich, Patricia GmbH and Mr Kraul, represented by Daniel Marquard, Rechtsanwalt, Hamburg, and of EMI Electrola and the Commission at the hearing on 19 May 1993,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 30 June 1993,

gives the following

Judgment

Grounds

1 By order of 4 March 1992...