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
Hewlett-Packard Belgium SPRL v Reprobel SCRL (C-572/13)
Judgment
The questions referred
The second question
86

Hewlett-Packard Belgium SPRL v Reprobel SCRL (C-572/13)

Judgment of 12 Nov 2015law://eu/cjeu/2013/c-572-13/para_86@2026-11-10

86Such ‘overcompensation’ would not be compatible with the requirement, set out in recital 31 in the preamble to Directive 2001/29, that a fair balance be safeguarded between the rightholders and the users of protected subject-matter.

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

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Fourth Chamber
Case: C-572/13 · ECLI:EU:C:2015:750
Decided: 12 Nov 2015
Procedure: Preliminary reference · referred by the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Court of Appeal, Brussels, Belgium)
Applicant: Hewlett-Packard Belgium SPRL
Defendant: Reprobel SCRL
Rapporteur: J. Malenovský
Advocate General: P. Cruz Villalón
Bench: 5 judges
L. Bay Larsen, J. Malenovský, M. Safjan, A. Prechal, K. Jürimäe
Language: French
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62013CJ0572

Topics

Approximation of laws Copyright and related rights

History · 1 version

12 Nov 2015Reading

Connections

Interprets 1: Directive 2001/29/EC3 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); Reprobel CV v Copaco Belgium NV (C-230/23)6 provisions; UAB ,,Renerga“ v AB „Energijos skirstymo operatorius“ and AB „Lietuvos energijos gamyba“ (C-238/17); Giuseppa Santoro v Comune di Valderice and Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri (C-494/16); Marc Soulier and Sara Doke v Premier ministre and Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication (C-301/15)
Cites 7: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016); Directive 2001/29/EC; Padawan SL v Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de España (SGAE) (C-467/08); Amazon.com International Sales Inc. and Others v Austro-Mechana Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung mechanisch-musikalischer Urheberrechte Gesellschaft mbH (C-521/11); José Manuel Blanco Pérez and María del Pilar Chao Gómez v Consejería de Salud y Servicios Sanitarios and Principado de Asturias (C-570/07, C-571/07); 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)