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
Copydan Båndkopi v Nokia Danmark A/S (C-463/12)
Judgment
Consideration of the questions referred
Question 1(e)
89

Copydan Båndkopi v Nokia Danmark A/S (C-463/12)

Judgment of 5 Mar 2015law://eu/cjeu/2012/c-463-12/para_89@2026-11-10

89It follows that the question whether the device used by a private individual to make copies for private use must belong to that person or whether it may belong to a third party falls outside the scope of Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29.

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

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Fourth Chamber
Case: C-463/12 · ECLI:EU:C:2015:144
Decided: 5 Mar 2015
Procedure: Preliminary reference · referred by the Østre Landsret (Denmark)
Applicant: Copydan Båndkopi
Defendant: Nokia Danmark A/S
Rapporteur: J. Malenovský
Advocate General: P. Cruz Villalón
Bench: 5 judges
L. Bay Larsen, K. Jürimäe, J. Malenovský, M. Safjan, A. Prechal
Language: Danish
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62012CJ0463

Topics

Approximation of laws Copyright and related rights Freedom of establishment Freedom to provide services

History · 1 version

5 Mar 2015Reading

Connections

Interprets 1: Directive 2001/29/EC4 provisions
Cited by 11: Microsoft Mobile Sales International Oy and Others v Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali (MiBAC) and Others (C-110/15); Asociación Multisectorial de Empresas de la Electrónica, las Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación, de las Telecomunicaciones y de los contenidos Digitales (AMETIC) v Administración General del Estado and Others (C-263/21); Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA) and Others v Administración del Estado and Asociación Multisectorial de Empresas de la Electrónica, las Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación, de las Telecomunicaciones y de los contenidos Digitales (AMETIC) (C-470/14); Austro-Mechana Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung mechanisch-musikalischer Urheberrechte Gesellschaft mbH v Strato AG (C-433/20)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); Seven.One Entertainment Group GmbH v Corint Media GmbH (C-260/22); Stichting Onderhandelingen Thuiskopie vergoeding and Stichting de Thuiskopie v HP Nederland BV and Others (C-496/24); bluechip Computer Aktiengesellschaft v Zentralstelle für private Überspielungsrechte (ZPÜ) (C-822/24)
Cites 13: Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (consolidated 2016); Directive 2001/29/EC2 provisions; 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); Amazon.com International Sales Inc. and Others v Austro-Mechana Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung mechanisch-musikalischer Urheberrechte Gesellschaft mbH (C-521/11); Melzer v MF Global UK Ltd (C-228/11); ACI Adam BV and Others v Stichting de Thuiskopie and Stichting Onderhandelingen Thuiskopie vergoeding (C-435/12); 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); Ufficio IVA di Piacenza v Belvedere Costruzioni Srl (C-500/10); Blanka Soukupová v Ministerstvo zemědělství (C-401/11); Ferdinand Stefan v Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft (C-329/13); Wolfgang Glatzel v Freistaat Bayern (C-356/12); Sky Italia Srl v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni (C-234/12)