Conclusie A-G: Belgische regelgeving over naburige rechten van muzikanten in strijd met EU-Richtlijnen

Conclusie A-G HvJ EU 24 oktober 2024, IEF 22336; IEFbe 3815; ECLI:EU:C:2024:923 (ONB) Na mislukte onderhandelingen over de naburige rechten van BNO-muzikanten besloot de Belgische overheid de kwestie via regelgeving te regelen. Ook consultatie over deze regelgeving faalde, wat leidde tot een memorandum van onenigheid op 12 mei 2021. Op 1 juni 2021 nam de Belgische staat de betwiste wet aan, die op 4 juni 2021 in werking trad. De betrokkenen vroegen de Raad van State om de wet te vernietigen, onder andere vanwege mogelijke schending van Richtlijn 2019/790. De A-G concludeert dat deze Belgische wetgeving in strijd is met de EU-richtlijnen 2001/29, 2006/115 en 2019/790.

De richtlijnen geven artiesten exclusieve rechten die niet eenzijdig in een vergoeding kunnen worden omgezet. Hoewel de overdracht van naburige rechten aan de werkgever mogelijk is, moet dit met voorafgaande toestemming van de artiesten of hun vertegenwoordigers.
Richtlijn 2019/790 is van toepassing op de Belgische wetgeving, omdat deze alle werken en ander materiaal beschermt die vanaf 7 juni 2021 door het nationale recht op het gebied van auteursrecht worden beschermd. De artikelen 18 tot en met 23 van deze richtlijn zijn van toepassing op de overdracht van naburige rechten van musici die statutair ambtenaar zijn, ook in een arbeidssituatie. De Belgische wetgeving moet in overeenstemming zijn met deze bepalingen, met inachtneming van reeds uitgevoerde exploitatiehandelingen en bestaande rechten die vóór 7 juni 2021 door de BNO zijn verworven.
De A-G benadrukt dat Richtlijn 2019/790 het vereiste van voorafgaande toestemming niet vervangt. Een eenzijdige maatregel zonder toestemming, zelfs indien deze voldoet aan de artikelen 18 tot en met 23 van richtlijn 2019/790, is niet in overeenstemming met de EU-auteurswetgeving.

49. I therefore propose answering the questions referred for a preliminary ruling, as regards Directives 2001/29 and 2006/115, to the effect that Article 2(b) and Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 2001/29, as well as Article 3(1)(a), Article 7(1), Article 8(1) and Article 9(1)(a) of Directive 2006/115, must be interpreted as precluding the assignment by regulation, in favour of the employer, of the related rights of performers who are statutory agents, for performances carried out in the context of the employment relationship, where the adoption and content of the regulatory act at issue do not have the prior consent of those performers or of their duly authorised representatives.

59. Those considerations lead me to the conclusion that Articles 18 to 23 of Directive 2019/790 are applicable to the act at issue in the main proceedings as from 7 June 2021, subject to acts of exploitation carried out and existing rights acquired by the BNO before that date. (28)

70. I therefore propose answering the question referred for a preliminary ruling, in respect of Directive 2019/790, to the effect that Articles 18 to 23 thereof must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to acts of exploitation carried out and existing rights acquired before 7 June 2021, they apply to the assignment by regulation, in favour of the employer, of the related rights of performers who are statutory agents, for performances carried out in the context of the employment relationship, such that that regulatory act must be in conformity with those provisions. The said act must also be in conformity with the requirements of Directives 2001/29 and 2006/115, particularly the requirement of prior consent for the assignment of related rights.

71. In view of all the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’État (Council of State, Belgium) in the following manner:

Article 2(b) and Article 3(2)(a) 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, as well as Article 3(1)(a), Article 7(1), Article 8(1) and Article 9(1)(a) of Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property

must be interpreted as precluding the assignment by regulation, in favour of the employer, of the rights related to copyright of performers who are statutory agents, for performances carried out in the context of the employment relationship, where the adoption and content of the regulatory act at issue do not have the prior consent of those performers or of their duly authorised representatives.

Articles 18 to 23 of Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC

must be interpreted as meaning that subject to acts of exploitation carried out and existing rights acquired before 7 June 2021, they apply to the assignment by regulation, in favour of the employer, of the related rights of performers who are statutory agents, for performances carried out in the context of the employment relationship, such that that regulatory act must be in conformity with those provisions. The said act must also be in conformity with the provisions of Directives 2001/29 and 2006/115, particularly the requirement of prior consent for the assignment of related rights.