CJEU: EU Law does not preclude rules requiring all co-authors to be involved, provided that …
23-12-2025 Print this page
EU law does not preclude national rules requiring all co-authors to be involved in a copyright action, provided that the procedure is not unnecessarily complex or costly and does not make it impossible or excessively difficult for one or more co-authors to litigate. The court must always safeguard the right to effective judicial protection (Article 47 of the EU Charter).
Summary translated via minbuza.nl :
On July 11, 2019, the heirs of Claude Chabrol and Paul Gégauff sued, among others, 'Brinter Company Ltd' for copyright infringement of 14 films directed by Claude Chabrol, five of which were co-authored by Paul Gégauff. They filed various claims for damages. The defendants argue that the claims are inadmissible because the plaintiffs did not summon all the co-authors of the films or their legal successors. The rule that an action can only be brought against all the authors of a joint work is established by case law of the (French) highest court.
Based on this case law, it is up to the plaintiff who wishes to protect their intellectual property rights to summon all co-authors of the joint copyright on the same work. The plaintiffs have been trying to identify the next of kin of the co-authors for years. The referring court questions whether this provision from the case law is compatible with the EU law rules on copyright and the enforcement of intellectual property rights, because it could hinder the protection of intellectual property rights in this way.
Preliminary questions
1. Can Articles 2, 3, 4 and 8 of Directive 2001/29/EC of 22 May 2001, Articles 1 to 3 of Directive 2004/48/EC of 29 April 2004, 1 and Articles 1, 2 and 9 of Directive 2006/116/EC of 12 December 2006, 2 in so far as they guarantee to the author and co-author of a cinematographic or audiovisual work both the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit the reproduction of their works and the right of their communication to the public and a term of protection ending 70 years after the death of the last survivor amongst the collaborators of the work, at the same time as they require the Member States to provide for effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions and remedies which are appropriate in respect of copyright infringements, as well as for measures, procedures and remedies which are not unnecessarily complicated or costly, or which do not entail unreasonable time limits or give rise to unwarranted delays, be interpreted as meaning that an action for infringement of the copyright of a work of joint authorship, by its holder, requires, in order for it to be admissible, that all of the co-authors be joined to the proceedings?
2. Must the copyright holder’s right to an effective judicial remedy and access to a court, a component of the right to a fair trial, as guaranteed, together, by Articles 2, 3, 4 and 8 of Directive 2001/29/EC of 22 May 2001, 1 Articles 1 to 3 of Directive 2004/48/EC of 29 April 2004, Articles 1, 2 and 9 of Directive 2006/116/EC of 12 December 2006, Directive 2006/115 of 12 December 2006 2 and Articles 17 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that the admissibility of an action for infringement of copyright is, or is not, conditional on all of the co-authors of the work being joined to the proceedings?
CJEU (translated from the French version):
Article 8 of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, Article 3 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, and Article 1 of Directive 2006/116/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights, read in conjunction with Articles 17 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that:
they do not preclude national legislation making the admissibility of an action for infringement of the copyright of a collective work conditional upon the involvement of All joint holders of this right may have recourse, provided that the interpretation and application of these regulations do not render the prescribed procedure unnecessarily complex or costly, and that the procedure must not make it impossible or excessively difficult for only one or more joint holders to bring this action. The national court must, in any event, guarantee respect for the right to effective judicial protection enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
IPPT version will follow anytime soon
ECLI:EU:C:2025:979 and case C-182/24 SACD a.o.
