{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-788-24","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-788-24)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-25","fingerprint":"ewai:eu:c82ec6","proof":"sha256:23c9ac981b29df93618743c62541b11eef5cf6d90a4aca7b9fcd95b69ebde93f","jurisdiction":"eu","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"eu:c-788-24","jurisdiction":"eu","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"Front matter","paragraphs":["para_1","para_2","para_3","para_4","para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23"],"kind":"front_matter"},{"title":"Judgment","paragraphs":["para_24","para_25","para_26"],"kind":"assessment"},{"title":"Legal context","paragraphs":["para_27","para_28","para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33","para_34","para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49"],"kind":"legal_framework"},{"title":"Netherlands law","paragraphs":["para_50","para_51","para_52"],"kind":"legal_framework"},{"title":"The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling","paragraphs":["para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77","para_78","para_79"],"kind":"facts"},{"title":"Consideration of the questions referred","paragraphs":["para_80"],"kind":"questions"},{"title":"The first and second questions","paragraphs":["para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85","para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89","para_90","para_91","para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108","para_109","para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117"],"kind":"questions"},{"title":"The third question","paragraphs":["para_118","para_119","para_120","para_121","para_122","para_123","para_124","para_125","para_126"],"kind":"assessment"},{"title":"Costs","paragraphs":["para_127","para_128"],"kind":"costs"},{"title":"On those grounds, the Court (Second Chamber) hereby rules:","paragraphs":["para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132","para_133","para_134","para_135"],"kind":"operative"}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"Provisional text","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber)","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"9 July 2026 ( * )","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Intellectual property – Copyright and related rights – Directive 2001/29/EC – Article 3(1) – Concept of ‘communication to the public’ – Article 6(3) – Effective technological measures – Work that is in the public domain in certain Member States and still protec …","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"In Case C‑788/24,","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands), made by decision of 8 November 2024, received at the Court on 14 November 2024, in the proceedings","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"Anne Frank Fonds","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"v","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"Anne Frank Stichting,","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen,","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"Vereniging voor Onderzoek en Ontsluiting van Historische Teksten,","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"THE COURT (Second Chamber),","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"composed of K. Jürimäe, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, President of the Court, acting as Judge of the Second Chamber, O. Spineanu-Matei (Rapporteur), M. Gavalec and Z. Csehi, Judges,","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"Advocate General: A. Rantos,","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"Registrar: A. Lamote, Administrator,","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 6 October 2025,","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"–        Anne Frank Fonds, by A. Groen and J.A. Visser, advocaten,","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"–        Anne Frank Stichting, Vereniging voor Onderzoek en Ontsluiting van Historische Teksten and Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, by T. Cohen Jehoram and I.L.N. Timp, advocaten,","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"–        the Portuguese Government, by P. Barros da Costa, M. Martins da Cruz and L. Medeiros, acting as Agents,","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"–        the European Commission, by J. Samnadda and F. van Schaik, acting as Agents,","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 15 January 2026,","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"gives the following","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"Judgment","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"1         This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 3(1) 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 (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"2         The request has been made in proceedings between Anne Frank Fonds (‘the Anne Frank Fund’), on the one hand, and Anne Frank Stichting (Anne Frank Foundation; ‘the Foundation’), Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; ‘the Academy’) …","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"Legal context","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"Directive 2001/29","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"3         Recitals 3, 4, 9, 10, 23, 27, 31 and 47 of Directive 2001/29 state:","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"‘(3)      The proposed harmonisation will help to implement the four freedoms of the internal market and relates to compliance with the fundamental principles of law and especially of property, including intellectual property, and freedom of expression and the public interest.","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"(4)      A harmonised legal framework on copyright and related rights, through increased legal certainty and while providing for a high level of protection of intellectual property, will foster substantial investment in creativity and innovation, including network infrastructure, and lead in turn to …","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"(9)      Any harmonisation of copyright and related rights must take as a basis a high level of protection, since such rights are crucial to intellectual creation. Their protection helps to ensure the maintenance and development of creativity in the interests of authors, performers, producers, consumers, culture, industry and the public at large. Intellectual property has therefore been recognised as an integral part of property.","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"(10)      If authors or performers are to continue their creative and artistic work, they have to receive an appropriate reward for the use of their work, as must producers in order to be able to finance this work. The investment required to produce products such as phonograms, films or multimedia p …","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"(23)      This Directive should harmonise further the author’s right of communication to the public. This right should be understood in a broad sense covering all communication to the public not present at the place where the communication originates. This right should cover any such transmission or retransmission of a work to the public by wire or wireless means, including broadcasting. This right should not cover any other acts.","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"(27)      The mere provision of physical facilities for enabling or making a communication does not in itself amount to communication within the meaning of this Directive.","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"(31)      A fair balance of rights and interests between the different categories of rightholders, as well as between the different categories of rightholders and users of protected subject matter, must be safeguarded. The existing exceptions and limitations to the rights as set out by the Member St …","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"(47)      Technological development will allow rightholders to make use of technological measures designed to prevent or restrict acts not authorised by the rightholders of any copyright, rights related to copyright or the sui generis right in databases. The danger, however, exists that illegal acti …","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"4         Article 3 of that directive, entitled ‘Right of communication to the public of works and right of making available to the public other subject matter’, provides, in paragraph 1:","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"‘Member States shall provide authors with the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit any communication to the public of their works, by wire or wireless means, including the making available to the public of their works in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.’","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"5         Article 6 of that directive, entitled ‘Obligations as to technological measures’, provides:","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"‘(1)      Member States shall provide adequate legal protection against the circumvention of any effective technological measures, which the person concerned carries out in the knowledge, or with reasonable grounds to know, that he or she is pursuing that objective.","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"(3)      For the purposes of this Directive, the expression “technological measures” means any technology, device or component that, in the normal course of its operation, is designed to prevent or restrict acts, in respect of works or other subject matter, which are not authorised by the rightholde …","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"…’","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"Netherlands law","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"6         Article 1 of the Auteurswet (Law on copyright) of 23 September 1912 (Stb. 1912, No 308), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings (‘the Law on copyright’), provides:","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"‘Copyright is the exclusive right of the author of a literary, scientific or artistic work, or of his or her successors in title, to make the work public and to reproduce it, subject to the limitations laid down by law.’","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"7         Anne Frank was a young German-Jewish teenager who lived in the Netherlands and whose personal diary ( The Diary of Anne Frank ), which she kept between 1942 and 1944, bears witness to the Shoah. After her death in a concentration camp, her father, Otto Frank, the family’s sole survivor, pu …","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"8         Since Otto Frank’s death, the Anne Frank Fund has become the rightholder of the copyright in the works of Anne Frank. A part of those works is, as is clear from a final judgment of the rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam, Netherlands) of 23 December 2015, protected in the Nether …","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"9         At the end of September 2021, a scholarly edition of Anne Frank’s manuscripts was published, in Dutch, free of charge on the website www.annefrankmanuscripten.org, the domain name of which is owned by the Association (‘the website’), which is registered in Belgium. Access to that site is r …","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"10       When an attempt is made to access the website from within the Netherlands, the following message is displayed:","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"‘Access denied","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"We’re sorry …","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"–        Unfortunately, this site is not available in your country.","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"–        The scholarly edition of the Anne Frank manuscripts cannot be made available in all countries, due to copyright considerations.","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"…’","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"11       When an attempt is made to access the website from a Member State in which those works are in the public domain, the following message is displayed:","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"‘Access check …","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"The scholarly edition of the Anne Frank manuscripts is not available in all countries, due to copyright restrictions. This edition can be accessed only from the following public domain countries: [List of countries].","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"By clicking “Yes” below you state and declare that you are accessing this website from one of the abovementioned public domain countries. If this statement is false, you are circumventing protection measures, which could mean that you are infringing copyrights, for which you will then be liable.’","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"12       A green box and a red box are displayed below that message. The user is invited to click on one of them. The text in the green box reads: ‘YES I am accessing the website from one of the public domain countries listed above’. The text in the red box reads: ‘NO I am accessing the website from another country’.","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"13       In November 2021, the Anne Frank Fund sent a letter of formal notice to the Foundation, the Academy and the Association, requiring them, inter alia, to stop displaying the Anne Frank manuscripts on the website in breach of its copyright, particularly its exclusive right under Article 1 of the Law on copyright to make those works public in the Netherlands.","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"14       Since that notice did not have the desired effect, the Anne Frank Fund brought an action before the Netherlands courts together with an application for interim relief, claiming, in connection with that application, that the Foundation, the Academy and the Association should immediately and …","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"15       The referring court is uncertain whether, as Advocate General Szpunar had indicated in his Opinion in Grand Production (C‑423/21, EU:C:2022:818) – a case in which the Court of Justice did not have an opportunity to deliver a ruling because the underlying request for a preliminary ruling was …","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"16       Furthermore, according to the referring court, if the mere possibility, for the public of a particular Member State, of circumventing a geo-blocking measure on a website were sufficient for a communication to the public to be characterised as one which is not authorised by the copyright hol …","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"17       In that context, the referring court is uncertain, first of all, as to the factors to be taken into consideration in determining whether the publication, on a website, of a work that is protected by copyright only in certain Member States is directed at a particular public. The referring co …","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"18       The referring court then asks whether, where there is a geo-blocking measure in place, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, it is important to determine the extent to which the public in the Member State covered by that measure is willing and able to circumvent it by means of a virtual private network (VPN) or similar service.","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"19       Lastly, should it be found that the possibility of circumventing such a measure by means of a VPN or similar service entails a ‘communication to the public’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29, in the Member State in which access to the work is supposed to have been blocked, the referring court queries whether that communication is attributable to the person who published the work on the internet or to the provider of the VPN or similar service.","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"20       In those circumstances, the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"‘(1)      Is Article 3(1) of [Directive 2001/29] to be interpreted as meaning that the publication of a work on the internet is only to be regarded as a communication to the public in a particular country if the publication is addressed to the public in that country? If so, what factors must be considered in assessing that?","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"(2)      Can there be a communication to the public in a particular country if, by means of (state-of-the-art) geo-blocking, it is ensured that the website on which the work is published can only be accessed by the public in that country by circumventing the blocking measure using a VPN or similar s …","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"(3)      If the possibility of circumventing the blocking measure entails the communication of the work published on the internet to the public in the blocked country within the meaning of Article 3(1) of [Directive 2001/29], is that communication made by the party who published the work on the internet, even though knowledge of that communication requires the intervention of the provider of the VPN or similar service in question?’","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"Consideration of the questions referred","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"The first and second questions","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"21       As a preliminary point, it must be noted that the first and second questions are raised in the context of a website on which a work that is in the public domain in certain Member States, but is still protected by copyright in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, may be consulted free of charge. …","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"22       In that context, the referring court seeks to ascertain whether, as a result of its publication on a website, the work that is protected in the Netherlands may be regarded as having been the subject, in the Netherlands, of a ‘communication to the public’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) …","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"23       In those circumstances, it must be stated that, by its first and second questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as meaning that a work which is in the public domain in certain …","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"24       In that regard, it must be recalled that, under Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29, Member States are to provide authors with the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit any communication to the public of their works, by wire or wireless means, including the making available to the public of their works in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"25       As the Court has previously held, the concept of ‘communication to the public’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29, should, as is underlined by recital 23 of that directive, be understood in a broad sense, as covering all communication to the public not present at the p …","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"26       It should also be noted that it follows from recitals 3 and 31 of Directive 2001/29 that the harmonisation effected by it is to maintain, in particular in the electronic environment, a fair balance between, on the one hand, the interests of copyright holders and related rights in protecting …","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"27       As the Court has repeatedly held, the concept of ‘communication to the public’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29, includes two cumulative criteria, namely an act of communication of a work and the communication of that work to a public, and requires an individual asse …","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"28       For the purposes of such an assessment, account has to be taken of several complementary criteria, which are not autonomous and are interdependent. Since those criteria may, in different situations, be present to widely varying degrees, they must be applied both individually and in their in …","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"29       As regards, first, the concept of ‘act of communication’, the Court has stated that, given the intention of the EU legislature to guarantee a high level of protection for copyright holders, as is apparent from recitals 4 and 9 of Directive 2001/29, that concept must be understood broadly as …","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"30       In particular, the Court has emphasised the indispensable role played by the person undertaking such an act and the deliberate nature of that person’s intervention. Thus, that person undertakes an ‘act of communication’ when he or she intervenes, in full knowledge of the consequences of his …","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"31       In the present case, it is apparent from paragraphs 8 and 9 of the present judgment that the Association wished to make a new scholarly online edition of the manuscripts of Anne Frank accessible to the internet users concerned, and to bring it to their attention, via the website. In the Net …","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"32       With regard, secondly, to the second of the abovementioned elements, that is, that the protected work must actually be communicated to a ‘public’, the Court has made clear that the concept of ‘public’ refers to an indeterminate number of potential recipients and implies, moreover, a fairly …","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"33       The Court has also stated that, according to settled case-law, in order to be categorised as a ‘communication to the public’, a protected work must be communicated using specific technical means, different from those previously used or, failing that, to a ‘new public’, that is to say, to a …","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"34       It is apparent from the information provided by the referring court that, in the light of the case-law cited in paragraphs 28 to 33 of the present judgment, the work at issue in the main proceedings was made available by a technical process different from those previously used, that is to say, publication of the work on a website, to an indeterminate number of persons not present at the place where the communication originated, that is to say, internet users.","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"35       However, it is important to determine whether, where such a site – which was created without the copyright holder’s authorisation by a third party established in a Member State in which the protected work is in the public domain – is subject to a geo-blocking measure to prevent it from bein …","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"36       In that regard, it must be recalled that under Article 6(1) of Directive 2001/29, Member States are obliged to provide adequate legal protection against the circumvention of any effective ‘technological measures’. Article 6(3) of Directive 2001/29, read in the light of recital 47 thereof, p …","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"37       In the context of the internet, the Court has made clear that, in order to ensure legal certainty and the smooth functioning of the internet, the copyright holder cannot be allowed to limit his or her consent by means other than what are described as ‘effective’ technological measures withi …","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"38       The Court has consequently ruled that, where the copyright holder has already published the protected work on a website which is not subject to any technological measure intended to restrict access to that work from other websites, the public to which access to that work is subsequently giv …","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"39       By contrast, in a situation in which the copyright holder made use of effective technological measures aimed at limiting access to the copyright holder’s work from websites other than that on which the copyright holder authorised communication of that work to the public, the Court ruled tha …","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"40       Thus, it follows from the considerations set out in paragraphs 36 to 39 of the present judgment that the existence of effective technological measures adopted or imposed by the copyright holder in the context of an act of communication of a work on the internet reflects the copyright holder’s intention to give access to the protected work only to a particular circle of internet users, not to all internet users.","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"41       As the Advocate General stated, in essence, in points 29, 30 and 33 of his Opinion, the Court’s case-law on this point may be applied by analogy in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings.","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"42       Indeed, where a work is protected by copyright in only one Member State but is in the public domain in other Member States, any person who knows or ought reasonably to have known that to be the case (judgment of 8 September 2016, GS Media , C‑160/15, EU:C:2016:644, paragraph 49) and who pub …","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"43       Consequently, it must be held that a person who publishes, free of charge, on a website a work that is still protected by copyright in one Member State, but is in the public domain in other Member States, is expressing his or her intention to make the work accessible only to those internet …","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"44       In the present case, it is common ground that a geo-blocking measure such as that at issue in the main proceedings is a ‘technological measure’, within the meaning of Article 6(3) of Directive 2001/29, in so far as it is a process that is aimed at enabling or preventing access to the work p …","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"45       As to whether such a geo-blocking measure constitutes an ‘effective’ technological measure, within the meaning of Article 6(3) of Directive 2001/29, it must be recalled that that provision adopts a broad definition of that term by including the application of an access control or protection …","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"46       The Court has made clear in that regard that the effectiveness of a technological measure does not have to be absolute, but must be assessed, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, in the light of the objective of preventing or eliminating acts not authorised by the copyright …","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"47       Furthermore, the effectiveness of a technological measure must be assessed, as is apparent from recital 47 of Directive 2001/29, in the light of technological development and the possibilities of circumventing the technological measure concerned as well as, as the Advocate General noted in point 27 of his Opinion, the territorial nature of copyright.","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"48       It will be for the referring court to ascertain, in the light of those criteria, whether the geo-blocking measure at issue in the main proceedings constitutes an ‘effective’ technological measure within the meaning of Article 6(3) of Directive 2001/29. In that regard, the Court, when giving …","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"49       In a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, a geo-blocking measure would seem to be effective as long as it is ‘state of the art’ and appears suitable for achieving the objective of preventing acts which are not authorised by the copyright holder, since the effect of it is, in principle, to block access, in those Member States in which the work is still protected by copyright, to the website on which that work is published free of charge.","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"50       In addition, such a measure serves to ensure a fair balance between, on the one hand, the interest of the rightholder in his or her work not being freely accessible in the Member States in which he or she still has an exclusive and inexhaustible right to authorise or prohibit any communicat …","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"51       While it is true that geo-blocking measures, including state-of-the-art measures, can, like any technological measure, be circumvented, particularly through the use of a VPN or similar service, the possibility of such circumvention cannot, in itself and in all circumstances, be a decisive factor in finding those measures to be inadequate and, therefore, ineffective.","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"52       In particular, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, to take the view that, because it could be circumvented, a geo-blocking measure that is ‘state of the art’ is not ‘effective’ within the meaning of Article 6(3) of Directive 2001/29 would, as the Advocate General s …","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"53       Moreover, as the Advocate General noted in essence in point 41 of his Opinion, the fact that other technological measures are likely to take greater account of the copyright holder’s interest, such as measures giving access similar to that of library computer terminals, subscription or logi …","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"54       As to the fact that, in the present case, the Association also installed on its website an alert system which, when an attempt to access the site is made from a Member State in which the work at issue in the main proceedings is in the public domain, calls for a declaration by the user that …","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"55       It follows that a geo-blocking measure such as that which the Association put in place on the website is ‘effective’, within the meaning of Article 6(3) of Directive 2001/29, in so far as it is ‘state of the art’, which it is for the referring court to ascertain. In that scenario, the Assoc …","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"56       For the above reasons, the answer to the first and second questions is that Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as meaning that a work which is in the public domain in certain Member States, but is still protected by copyright in another Member State, and which is publishe …","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"The third question","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"57       As a preliminary point, it must be noted that, by its third question, the referring court assumes a scenario in which the publication on a website of a work such as that at issue in the main proceedings qualifies as a ‘communication to the public’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Dire …","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"58       It is, however, apparent from the answer to the first and second questions that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the categorisation of such publication as a ‘communication to the public’ largely depends on the ineffectiveness of the technological measure put in …","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"59       Moreover, a reply to the third question is still called for since, in view of the answer given to the first and second questions, it will ultimately be for the referring court to determine whether the geo-blocking measure at issue in the main proceedings is ‘effective’, within the meaning of Article 6(3) of Directive 2001/29.","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"60       In those circumstances, it must be stated that, by its third question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 3(1) of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that where the publication, on a website, of a work which is in the public domain in certain Member States, but …","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"61       In that regard, and in view of the considerations set out in paragraph 42 of the present judgment, it must be observed that, where the person who published the work did not put in place effective technological measures, within the meaning of Article 6(3) of Directive 2001/29, the relevant communication to the public, and the resulting lack of protection, is attributable to that person.","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"62       By contrast, the provider of a VPN or similar services that are used in order to circumvent an ineffective geo-blocking measure and are lawful technical tools which users may legitimately use cannot be regarded as also having communicated the work to the public.","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"63       Indeed, the Court has previously held that such a provider does not give end users access to a protected work and that even if the provider is aware of the consequence that its service may be used to access protected works without the consent of their authors, the provider is not itself int …","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"64       For the foregoing reasons, the answer to the third question is that Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as meaning that where the publication, on a website, of a work which is in the public domain in certain Member States, but is still protected by copyright in another Mem …","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"Costs","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"65       Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"On those grounds, the Court (Second Chamber) hereby rules:","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"1.        Article 3(1) 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","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"must be interpreted as meaning that a work which is in the public domain in certain Member States, but is still protected by copyright in another Member State, and which is published free of charge on a website that incorporates a geo-blocking measure designed to ensure that access to that site is b …","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"2.        Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"must be interpreted as meaning that where the publication, on a website, of a work which is in the public domain in certain Member States, but is still protected by copyright in another Member State, constitutes a ‘communication to the public’ in the latter Member State because the geo-blocking meas …","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"[Signatures]","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"*       Language of the case: Dutch.","paragraph_id":"para_135"}],"operative_part":"On those grounds, the Court (Second Chamber) hereby rules:\n\n1.        Article 3(1) 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\n\nmust be interpreted as meaning t …","word_count":8298,"cites":["C-423/21","C-392/19","C-135/23","C-160/15","C-682/18","C-683/18","C-135/10","C-325/14","C-306/05","C-89/04","C-355/12","C-516/24","C-426/21"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"a42ce0475041001ca03c21c9123d9fc9f7d70084a67553c38b9dd85d44abf3ff","source_url":"https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62024CJ0788","fetched_at":"2026-09-30T19:13:41.657+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/eu/c-788-24","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-788-24","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-788-24","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-788-24","verification":{"stored_sha256":"a42ce0475041001ca03c21c9123d9fc9f7d70084a67553c38b9dd85d44abf3ff","recomputed_sha256":"a42ce0475041001ca03c21c9123d9fc9f7d70084a67553c38b9dd85d44abf3ff","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-26T00:23:45.533Z"}},"hash":"sha256:23c9ac981b29df93618743c62541b11eef5cf6d90a4aca7b9fcd95b69ebde93f","version":"legal-2026-10-25","expires":"2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-25+legal-2026-10-25+2026-10-25T13:37:31","content_hash":"sha256:23c9ac981b29df93618743c62541b11eef5cf6d90a4aca7b9fcd95b69ebde93f","revalidate_after":"2026-10-26T01:23:45.854Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-788-24","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-788-24"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-788-24"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-788-24"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=eu"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/eu/praxis/c-788-24","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-dca9fdf968e2b311a2866488f5f846ac","response_hash":"sha256:23c9ac981b29df93618743c62541b11eef5cf6d90a4aca7b9fcd95b69ebde93f"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-02T22:30:29.259Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu%3Ac-788-24&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":11952}}