Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

European Union
ACI Adam BV and Others v Stichting de Thuiskopie and Stichting Onderhandelingen Thuiskopie vergoeding (C-435/12)
Judgment
Consideration of the questions referred
The first and second questions
40

ACI Adam BV and Others v Stichting de Thuiskopie and Stichting Onderhandelingen Thuiskopie vergoeding (C-435/12)

Judgment of 10 Apr 2014law://eu/cjeu/2012/c-435-12/para_40@2026-11-10

40Secondly, the application of such national legislation may, having regard to the finding made in paragraph 31 of the present judgment, unreasonably prejudice copyright holders.

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Fourth Chamber
Case: C-435/12 · ECLI:EU:C:2014:254
Decided: 10 Apr 2014
Procedure: Preliminary reference · referred by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)
Applicant: ACI Adam BV and Others
Defendants: Stichting de Thuiskopie; Stichting Onderhandelingen Thuiskopie vergoeding
Rapporteur: J. Malenovský
Advocate General: P. Cruz Villalón
Bench: 5 judges
L. Bay Larsen, K. Lenaerts, M. Safjan, J. Malenovský, A. Prechal
Language: Dutch
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62012CJ0435

Topics

Approximation of laws Copyright and related rights

History · 1 version

10 Apr 2014Reading

Connections

Interprets 2: Directive 2001/29/EC3 provisions; Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (Text with EEA relevance)
Cited by 18: Copydan Båndkopi v Nokia Danmark A/S (C-463/12)2 provisions; VCAST Limited v RTI SpA (C-265/16); Hewlett-Packard Belgium SPRL v Reprobel SCRL (C-572/13)2 provisions; Funke Medien NRW GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (C-469/17); Pelham GmbH and Others v Ralf Hütter and Florian Schneider-Esleben (C-476/17); Spiegel Online GmbH v Volker Beck (C-516/17); Austro-Mechana Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung mechanisch-musikalischer Urheberrechte Gesellschaft mbH v Amazon EU Sàrl and Others (C-572/14); Johan Deckmyn and Vrijheidsfonds VZW v Helena Vandersteen and Others (C-201/13); Staatlich genehmigte Gesellschaft der Autoren, Komponisten und Musikverleger registrierte Genossenschaft mbH (AKM) v Zürs.net Betriebs GmbH (C-138/16); Diageo Brands BV v Simiramida-04 EOOD (C-681/13); Stichting Brein v Jack Frederik Wullems (C-527/15); Stichting Onderhandelingen Thuiskopie vergoeding and Stichting de Thuiskopie v HP Nederland BV and Others (C-496/24); Perfumesco.pl sp. z o.o., sp. k. v Procter & Gamble International Operations SA (C-355/21); IT Development SAS v Free Mobile SAS (C-666/18); KROL - Zakład Robót Wodno-Kanalizacyjnych Sp. z o.o., S.k. v Porr Polska Construction S.A (C-722/18); Vereniging Openbare Bibliotheken v Stichting Leenrecht (C-174/15); Nannoka Vulcanus Industries BV v College van gedeputeerde staten van Gelderland (C-81/14); Technische Universität Darmstadt v Eugen Ulmer KG (C-117/13)
Cites 7: Directive 2001/29/EC; Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (Text with EEA relevance); Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening (C-5/08); Padawan SL v Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de España (SGAE) (C-467/08); Stichting de Thuiskopie v Opus Supplies Deutschland GmbH and Others (C-462/09); Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort) v Kyocera and Others (C‑457/11) and Canon Deutschland GmbH (C‑458/11) and Fujitsu Technology Solutions GmbH (C‑459/11) and Hewlett-Packard GmbH (C‑460/11) v Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort) (C-457/11, C-458/11, C-459/11, C-460/11); Bericap Záródástechnikai Bt. v Plastinnova 2000 Kft (C-180/11)