PARALLEL TEXTS
Ad un fornitore di accesso a Internet può essere ordinato di bloccare l’accesso dei suoi abbonati ad un sito web che viola il diritto d’autore
Inglese tratto da:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_CJE-14-38_en.htm
Italiano tratto da:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_CJE-14-38_it.htm
Data documento: 27-03-2014
1 |
An internet service provider may be ordered to block its customers’ access to a copyright-infringing website
|
Ad un fornitore di accesso a Internet può essere ordinato di bloccare l’accesso dei suoi abbonati ad un sito web che viola il diritto d’autore
|
2 |
Such an injunction and its enforcement must, however, ensure a fair balance between the fundamental rights concerned
|
Una tale ingiunzione e la sua esecuzione devono, tuttavia, garantire un giusto equilibrio tra i diritti fondamentali interessati
|
3 |
Constantin Film Verleih, a German company which holds, inter alia, the rights to the films ‘Vicky the Viking’ and ‘Pandorum’, and Wega Filmproduktionsgesellschaft, an Austrian company which holds the rights to the film ‘The White Ribbon’, became aware that their films could be viewed or even downloaded from the website ‘kino.to’ without their consent.
|
La Constantin Film Verleih, società tedesca che possiede, segnatamente, i diritti dei film «Vic il Vichingo» et «Pandorum», e la Wega Filmproduktionsgesellschaft, società austriaca che possiede i diritti del film «Il nastro bianco», si sono accorte che i loro film potevano, senza il loro consenso, essere visti, o anche scaricati, a partire dal sito Internet «kino.to».
|
4 |
At the request of those two companies, the Austrian courts prohibited UPC Telekabel Wien, an internet service provider (‘ISP’) established in Austria, from providing its customers with access to that site.
|
Su richiesta di queste due società, i giudici austriaci hanno vietato all’UPC Telekabel Wien, fornitore di accesso ad Internet stabilito in Austria, di fornire ai suoi abbonati l’accesso a tale sito.
|
5 |
UPC Telekabel considers that such an injunction cannot be addressed to it, because, at the material time, it did not have any business relationship with the operators of kino.to and it was never established that its own customers acted unlawfully.
|
L’UPC Telekabel ritiene che una tale ingiunzione non possa essere emessa nei suoi confronti. All’epoca dei fatti, essa non aveva alcun rapporto commerciale con i gestori del sito kino.to e non sarebbe mai stato dimostrato che i suoi abbonati abbiano agito in modo illecito.
|
6 |
UPC Telekabel also claims that the various blocking measures which may be introduced could, in any event, be technically circumvented.
|
L’UPC Telekabel afferma inoltre che le diverse misure di blocco che avrebbero potuto essere adottate potevano, in ogni caso, essere tecnicamente aggirate.
|
7 |
Finally, some of those measures are excessively costly.
|
Infine, alcune di tali misure sarebbero eccessivamente onerose.
|
8 |
Hearing the case at last instance, the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court, Austria) asked the Court of Justice to interpret the EU Copyright Directive and the fundamental rights recognised by EU law.
|
Adito della controversia in ultima istanza, l’Oberster Gerichtshof (Corte suprema, Austria) chiede alla Corte di giustizia di interpretare la direttiva dell’Unione sul diritto d’autore nonché i diritti fondamentali riconosciuti dal diritto dell’Unione.
|
9 |
The directive provides for the possibility for rightholders to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe their rights.
|
La direttiva prevede la facoltà dei titolari di diritti di chiedere un provvedimento inibitorio nei confronti degli intermediari i cui servizi siano utilizzati da terzi per violare i loro propri diritti.
|
10 |
UPC Telekabel submits that it cannot be considered to be an intermediary in that sense.
|
L’UPC Telekabel ritiene di non poter essere qualificata come intermediario in tal senso.
|
11 |
In today’s judgment, the Court replies to the Oberster Gerichtshof that a person who makes protected subject-matter available to the public on a website without the agreement of the rightholder is using the services of the business which provides internet access to persons accessing that subject-matter.
|
Con la sentenza odierna la Corte risponde all’Oberster Gerichtshof che un soggetto il quale mette a disposizione del pubblico su un sito Internet materiali protetti senza l’accordo del titolare di diritti utilizza i servizi della società che fornisce l’accesso ad Internet ai soggetti che consultano tali materiali.
|
12 |
Thus, an ISP, such as UPC Telekabel, which allows its customers to access protected subject-matter made available to the public on the internet by a third party is an intermediary whose services are used to infringe a copyright.
|
Pertanto, un fornitore di accesso ad Internet che, come l’UPC Telekabel, consente ai suoi abbonati l’accesso a materiali protetti messi a disposizione del pubblico su Internet da un terzo è un intermediario i cui servizi sono utilizzati per violare un diritto d’autore.
|
13 |
The Court notes, in that regard, that the directive, which seeks to guarantee a high level of protection of rightholders, does not require a specific relationship between the person infringing copyright and the intermediary against whom an injunction may be issued.
|
La Corte precisa a tale proposito che la direttiva, che tende a garantire un alto livello di protezione ai titolari di diritti, non richiede un rapporto particolare tra il soggetto che commette la violazione del diritto d’autore e l’intermediario nei confronti del quale può essere emessa un’ingiunzione.
|
14 |
Nor is it necessary to prove that the customers of the ISP actually access the protected subject-matter made accessible on the third party’s website, because the directive requires that the measures which the Member States must take in order to conform to that directive are aimed not only at bringing infringements of copyright and of related rights to an end, but also at preventing them.
|
Non è necessario neppure dimostrare che gli abbonati del fornitore d’accesso consultino effettivamente i materiali protetti accessibili sul sito Internet del terzo, poiché la direttiva dispone che le misure che gli Stati membri sono tenuti ad adottare per conformarsi ad essa hanno l’obiettivo non solo di far cessare, ma altresì di prevenire le violazioni inferte al diritto d’autore o ai diritti connessi.
|
15 |
The Oberster Gerichtshof also seeks to know whether the fundamental rights recognised at EU level preclude a national court from prohibiting an ISP, by means of an injunction, from allowing its customers access to a website which places protected subject-matter online without the agreement of the rightholders, when that injunction does not specify the measures which the ISP must take and when that ISP can avoid incurring coercive penalties for breach of the injunction by showing that it has taken all reasonable measures.
|
L’Oberster Gerichtshof intende inoltre accertare se i diritti fondamentali riconosciuti a livello dell’Unione ostino a che un giudice nazionale vieti, mediante un’ingiunzione, a un fornitore di accesso ad Internet di concedere ai suoi abbonati l’accesso ad un sito Internet che mette in rete materiali protetti senza l’accordo dei titolari di diritti, qualora tale ingiunzione non specifichi quali misure il fornitore d’accesso deve adottare e questi possa evitare le sanzioni per la violazione di tale ingiunzione dimostrando di avere adottato tutte le misure ragionevoli.
|
16 |
In this connection, the Court notes that, within the framework of such an injunction, copyrights and related rights (which are intellectual property) primarily enter into conflict with the freedom to conduct a business, which economic agents (such as internet service providers) enjoy, and with the freedom of information of internet users.
|
A tale proposito, la Corte rileva che nell’ambito di una tale ingiunzione, i diritti d’autore e i diritti connessi (che rientrano nel diritto della proprietà intellettuale) sono in conflitto principalmente con la libertà d’impresa di cui godono gli operatori economici (quali i fornitori di accesso ad Internet) nonché con la libertà d’informazione degli utenti di Internet.
|
17 |
Where several fundamental rights are at issue, Member States must ensure that they rely on an interpretation of EU law and their national law which allows a fair balance to be struck between those fundamental rights.
|
Orbene, quando diversi diritti fondamentali sono in conflitto fra loro, gli Stati membri sono tenuti a fondarsi su un’interpretazione del diritto dell’Unione e del proprio diritto nazionale tale da garantire un giusto equilibrio tra questi diritti fondamentali.
|
18 |
With regard, more specifically, to the ISP’s freedom to conduct a business, the Court considers that that injunction does not seem to infringe the very substance of that right, given that, first, it leaves its addressee to determine the specific measures to be taken in order to achieve the result sought, with the result that he can choose to put in place measures which are best adapted to the resources and abilities available to him and which are compatible with the other obligations and challenges which he will encounter in the exercise of his activity, and that, secondly, it allows him to avoid liability by proving that he has taken all reasonable measures.
|
Per quanto riguarda più specificamente il diritto alla libertà d’impresa del fornitore di accesso ad Internet, la Corte ritiene che non risulta che detta ingiunzione pregiudichi la sostanza stessa di tale diritto, poiché, da un lato, essa lascia al suo destinatario l’onere di determinare le misure concrete da adottare per raggiungere il risultato perseguito, con la conseguenza che esso può scegliere di adottare le misure che più si adattano alle risorse e alle capacità di cui dispone e che siano compatibili con gli altri obblighi e sfide cui deve far fronte nell’esercizio della propria attività, e, dall’altro, essa gli consente di sottrarsi alla propria responsabilità dimostrando di avere adottato tutte le misure ragionevoli.
|
19 |
The Court therefore holds that the fundamental rights concerned do not preclude such an injunction, on two conditions: (i) that the measures taken by the ISP do not unnecessarily deprive users of the possibility of lawfully accessing the information available and (ii) that those measures have the effect of preventing unauthorised access to the protected subject-matter or, at least, of making it difficult to achieve and of seriously discouraging users from accessing the subject-matter that has been made available to them in breach of the intellectual property right.
|
La Corte ritiene, pertanto, che i diritti fondamentali in parola non ostino ad una tale ingiunzione, alla duplice condizione che le misure adottate dal fornitore di accesso non privino inutilmente gli utenti di Internet della possibilità di accedere in modo lecito alle informazioni disponibili e che tali misure abbiano l’effetto di impedire o, almeno, di rendere difficilmente realizzabili, le consultazioni non autorizzate di materiali protetti e di scoraggiare seriamente gli utenti dal consultare i materiali messi a loro disposizione in violazione del diritto di proprietà intellettuale.
|
20 |
The Court states that internet users and also, indeed, the ISP must be able to assert their rights before the court.
|
La Corte precisa, dunque, che gli internauti e il fornitore di accesso ad Internet devono poter far valere i propri diritti dinanzi al giudice.
|
21 |
It is a matter for the national authorities and courts to check whether those conditions are satisfied.
|
Spetta alle autorità e ai giudici nazionali verificare se tali condizioni siano soddisfatte.
|
22 |
NOTE:
|
IMPORTANTE:
|
23 |
A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of European Union law or the validity of a European Union act.
|
Il rinvio pregiudiziale consente ai giudici degli Stati membri, nell'ambito di una controversia della quale sono investiti, di interpellare la Corte in merito all’interpretazione del diritto dell’Unione o alla validità di un atto dell’Unione.
|
24 |
The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself.
|
La Corte non risolve la controversia nazionale.
|
25 |
It is for the national court or tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance with the Court’s decision, which is similarly binding on other national courts or tribunals before which a similar issue is raised |
Spetta al giudice nazionale risolvere la causa conformemente alla decisione della Corte. Tale decisione vincola egualmente gli altri giudici nazionali ai quali venga sottoposto un problema simile. |
|
LISTEN WITH READSPEAKER
••
An internet service provider may be ordered to block its customers’ access
to a copyright-infringing website
Such an injunction and its enforcement must, however, ensure a fair
balance between the fundamental rights concerned
Constantin Film Verleih, a German company which holds, inter alia, the rights
to the films ‘Vicky the Viking’ and ‘Pandorum’, and Wega
Filmproduktionsgesellschaft, an Austrian company which holds the rights to the
film ‘The White Ribbon’, became aware that their films could be viewed or even
downloaded from the website ‘kino.to’without their consent.
At the request of those two companies, the Austrian courts prohibited UPC
Telekabel Wien, an internet service provider (‘ISP’) established in Austria,
from providing its customers with access to that site.
UPC Telekabel considers that such an injunction cannot be addressed to it,
because, at the material time, it did not have any business relationship with
the operators of kino.to and it was never established that its own customers
acted unlawfully.
UPC Telekabel also claims that the various blocking measures which may be
introduced could, in any event, be technically circumvented.
Finally, some of those measures are excessively costly.
Hearing the case at last instance, the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court,
Austria) asked the Court of Justice to interpret the EU Copyright Directive and
the fundamental rights recognised by EU law.
The directive provides for the possibility for rightholders to apply for an
injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to
infringe their rights.
UPC Telekabel submits that it cannot be considered to be an intermediary in
that sense.
In today’s judgment, the Court replies to the Oberster Gerichtshof that a
person who makes protected subject-matter available to the public on a website
without the agreement of the rightholder is using the services of the business
which provides internet access to persons accessing that subject-matter.
Thus, an ISP, such as UPC Telekabel, which allows its customers to access
protected subject-matter made available to the public on the internet by a third
party is an intermediary whose services are used to infringe a copyright.
The Court notes, in that regard, that the directive, which seeks to guarantee
a high level of protection of rightholders, does not require a specific
relationship between the person infringing copyright and the intermediary
against whom an injunction may be issued.
Nor is it necessary to prove that the customers of the ISP actually access
the protected subject-matter made accessible on the third party’s website,
because the directive requires that the measures which the Member States must
take in order to conform to that directive are aimed not only at bringing
infringements of copyright and of related rights to an end, but also at
preventing them.
The Oberster Gerichtshof also seeks to know whether the fundamental rights
recognised at EU level preclude a national court from prohibiting an ISP, by
means of an injunction, from allowing its customers access to a website which
places protected subject-matter online without the agreement of the
rightholders, when that injunction does not specify the measures which the ISP
must take and when that ISP can avoid incurring coercive penalties for breach of
the injunction by showing that it has taken all reasonable measures.
In this connection, the Court notes that, within the framework of such an
injunction, copyrights and related rights (which are intellectual property)
primarily enter into conflict with the freedom to conduct a business, which
economic agents (such as internet service providers) enjoy, and with the freedom
of information of internet users.
Where several fundamental rights are at issue, Member States must ensure that
they rely on an interpretation of EU law and their national law which allows a
fair balance to be struck between those fundamental rights.
With regard, more specifically, to the ISP’s freedom to conduct a business,
the Court considers that that injunction does not seem to infringe the very
substance of that right, given that, first, it leaves its addressee to determine
the specific measures to be taken in order to achieve the result sought, with
the result that he can choose to put in place measures which are best adapted to
the resources and abilities available to him and which are compatible with the
other obligations and challenges which he will encounter in the exercise of his
activity, and that, secondly, it allows him to avoid liability by proving that
he has taken all reasonable measures.
The Court therefore holds that the fundamental rights concerned do not
preclude such an injunction, on two conditions: (i) that the measures taken by
the ISP do not unnecessarily deprive users of the possibility of lawfully
accessing the information available and (ii) that those measures have the
effect of preventing unauthorised access to the protected subject-matter or, at
least, of making it difficult to achieve and of seriously discouraging users
from accessing the subject-matter that has been made available to them in breach
of the intellectual property right.
The Court states that internet users and also, indeed, the ISP must be able
to assert their rights before the court.
It is a matter for the national authorities and courts to check whether those
conditions are satisfied.
NOTE:
A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the
Member States, in disputes which have been brought before them, to refer
questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of European Union law
or the validity of a European Union act.
The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself.
It is for the national court or tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance
with the Court’s decision, which is similarly binding on other national courts
or tribunals before which a similar issue is raised
|