Preliminary questions on communication to the public in a beauty salon: whether account should be taken of the floor area, the number of hairdressing chairs and waiting seats, and the presence of a relaxation area?

The premises in which Natural Beauty Levin carries out its activities have a surface area of 71 m² and are equipped, inter alia, with three television sets. The claimant argued that the defendant is civilly liable for an unlawful act consisting in the unauthorized communication to the public of phonograms, as it does not hold a non-exclusive licence/authorization from CREDIDAM. The defendant contended that the mere installation of television sets does not constitute evidence of communication to the public. By civil judgment of 6 December 2024, the Tribunal București upheld the claim and ordered the defendant to pay the amount of RON 4,929 and legal costs. The Tribunal held that a beauty salon cannot be compared to a dental practice and that television sets are installed in order to create a more pleasant atmosphere.

Case C-667/25 Natural Beauty Levin

Preliminary questions:

(1) Should the concept of ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115 be interpreted as including the situation of the broadcasting of phonograms within a salon, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in the context of the operation of that business? 

 

(2) When applying an individual approach to the concept of ‘communication to the public’, should circumstances such as the size of the establishment, the number of barber chairs and/or customer waiting stations, the existence of a relaxation area and/or a socialising area for customers, and the business model be considered relevant?

Infocuria C-667/25