Case C‑177/16

Autortiesību un komunicēšanās konsultāciju aģentūra / Latvijas Autoru apvienība

v

Konkurences padome

(Request for a preliminary ruling
from the Augstākā tiesa Administratīvo lietu departaments)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Article 102 TFEU — Abuse of a dominant position — Concept of ‘unfair price’ — Fees collected by a copyright management organisation — Comparison with rates charged in other Member States — Choice of reference Member States — Assessment criteria for prices — Calculation of the fine)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 14 September 2017

1.        Dominant position — Effect on trade between Member States — Criteria for assessment — Potential and significant effect — Rates applied by a copyright management organisation that holds a monopoly

(Art. 102 TFEU)

2.        Dominant position — Abuse — Unfair trading conditions — Assessment — Rates applied by a copyright management organisation — Comparison with the rates applied in other Member States — Choice of reference Member States — Comparison of rates charged in specific user segments — Lawfulness — Conditions

(Art. 102 TFEU)

3.        Dominant position — Abuse — Unfair trading conditions — Assessment — Rates applied by a copyright management organisation — Comparison with the rates applied in other Member States — Significant and persistent difference between rates — Evidence of abuse — Evidential obligations of the management organisation disputing the abuse

(Art. 102 TFEU)

4.        Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Abuse of a dominant position — Fine imposed by a national competition authority — Calculation — Turnover to be taken into consideration

(Art. 102 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Arts 5 and 23(2))

5.        Dominant position — Abuse — Unfair trading conditions — Assessment — Rates applied by a copyright management organisation — Comparison with the rates applied in other Member States — Fine imposed by a national competition authority — Amount — Determination

(Art. 102 TFEU)

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.

(see para. 30, operative part 1)

2.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 31-51, operative part 2)

3.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 52-61, operative part 3)

4.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 62-71, operative part 4)

5.      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.

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.

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.

(see operative part 2-4)