Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_178559 AI generated

Jurisdictional “place of damage” in copyright collective management claims equated to location of unauthorized use rather than payment site

Case Number ICCJ_178559
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court of Cassation and Justice (ICCJ) admitted the appeal in the interest of law filed by the Governing College of the ICCJ, establishing a mandatory uniform interpretation that the "place of damage" in collective management organizations' claims for unauthorized public communication or reproduction of sound recordings or audio-visual performances corresponds to the place where the unlawful act was committed, not the place where payment was made. This decision resolves a dispute concerning the territorial jurisdiction for civil liability actions brought by copyright collective management entities against users, clarifying the scope of civil procedure provisions. The decisive legal basis is the unified interpretation of Articles 107, 113(1)(9), and 116 of the Romanian Civil Procedure Code, defining the jurisdictional criterion for "place of damage" in intellectual property infringement cases involving remuneration for unauthorized use of protected works.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 517 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură civilă; Jurisdictional “place of damage” in copyright collective management claims equated to location of unauthorized use rather than payment site: This decision resolves a dispute concerning the territorial jurisdiction for civil liability actions brought by copyright collective management entities against users, clarifying the scope of civil procedure provisions. The decisive legal basis is the unified interpretation of Articles 107, 113(1)(9), and 116 of the Romanian Civil Procedure Code, defining the jurisdictional criterion for "place of damage" in intellectual property infringement cases involving remuneration for unauthorized use of protected works.

Keywords

AI generated
civil copyright infringement copyright remuneration collective property e-justice basis of liability intellectual property

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 517 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură civilă
Procedural basis cited in the dispositive to establish the mandatory nature of the decision and its legal effects.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 2576/2021
Jurisdictional venue for copyright delict claims: identifying the place of harm as the site of unauthorized public communication rather than the collective management organization's domicile
ICCJ_185483
Jurisdiction for copyright infringement damages lies where the unauthorized communication occurred, not where payment is due.
Decizia nr. 1073/2020
Territorial jurisdiction for intellectual property delict claims: place of damage versus place of payment in copyright remuneration disputes
Decizia nr. 561/2015
Territorial jurisdiction in copyright delict claims: unauthorized public communication of phonograms and the location of damage assessment
Decizia nr. 2329/2016
Territorial jurisdiction for copyright royalty claims: place of harm versus place of illicit act

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 517 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură civilă

Procedural basis cited in the dispositive to establish the mandatory nature of the decision and its legal effects.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

R O M Â N I A

ÎNALTA CURTE DE CASAŢIE ŞI JUSTIŢIE

Completul pentru soluționarea recursului în interesul legii

Minuta deciziei nr. 21 Dosar nr. 1694/1/2021

Şedinţa de la 27 septembrie 2021

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

D E C I D E : Admite recursul în interesul legii formulat de Colegiul de conducere al Înaltei Curţi de Casaţie şi Justiţie. În interpretarea şi aplicarea unitară a dispoziţiilor art. 107, art. 113 alin. (1) pct. 9 şi art. 116 din Codul de procedură civilă, stabilește că sintagma „loc al producerii prejudiciului” în acţiunile în pretenţii formulate de organismele de gestiune colectivă a drepturilor de autor, având ca obiect obligarea utilizatorilor de a achita remunerațiile cuvenite pentru comunicarea publică/radiodifuzarea neautorizată a fonogramelor de comerț sau publicate în scop comercial ori a reproducerilor acestora și/sau a prestațiilor artistice din domeniul audiovizual corespunde locului săvârșirii faptei ilicite, iar nu celui al efectuării plăţii prejudiciului. Obligatorie, potrivit dispozițiilor art. 517 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură civilă. Pronunțată în ședință publică astăzi, 27 septembrie 2021.