Court of Justice of the European Union
PRESS RELEASE No 64/16
Luxembourg, 16 June 2016

Press and Information

Advocate General’s Opinion in Case C-174/15
Vereniging Openbare Bibliotheken v Stichting Leenrecht

In the view of Advocate General Szpunar, the lending of electronic books is
comparable to the lending of traditional books
It follows that the general regime of the lending right, which provides in particular for fair
remuneration for authors under the public lending exception, is applicable
A 2006 EU directive concerning, among other things, the rental and lending rights in respect of
books provides that the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit such rentals and loans belongs to
the author of the work. Member States may, however, derogate from that exclusive right in respect
of public lending, provided that authors obtain, at least, fair remuneration.1
In the Netherlands, the lending of electronic books does not come within that regime. However, the
Vereniging Openbare Bibliotheken (‘VOB’), an association to which every public library in the
Netherlands belongs, takes the view that that regime should also apply to digital lending. Within
that context, it brought an action against Stichting Leenrecht, a foundation entrusted with collecting
the remuneration due to authors, seeking a declaratory judgment to that effect. VOB’s action
concerns lending under the ‘one copy one user’ model: an electronic book at a library’s disposal
may be downloaded by a user for the lending period, on the understanding that it is not accessible
to other library users during that entire period. At the end of that period, the book in question will
automatically become unusable for the borrower in question and may then be borrowed by another
user.
Seised of the dispute, the Rechtbank Den Haag (District Court, The Hague, Netherlands)
considered that its response to VOB’s application depends upon the interpretation of provisions of
EU law and it has referred several questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
In today’s Opinion, Advocate General Maciej Szpunar takes the view that the making available
to the public, for a limited period of time, of electronic books by public libraries may indeed
come within the scope of the directive on rental and lending rights.
The Advocate General considers that the EU legislature did not contemplate the inclusion of the
lending of electronic books within the directive’s concept of ‘lending’ because the technology
relating to commercially viable electronic books was at that time only in its infancy.
He thus suggests that a ‘dynamic’ or ‘evolving’ interpretation of the directive should be applied,
arguing, inter alia, that the lending of electronic books is the modern equivalent of the lending of
printed books. According to the Advocate General, such an interpretation alone will be capable of
ensuring the effectiveness of the legislation in question in a sector experiencing rapid technological
and economic development.
The Advocate General also points out that the main purpose of copyright is to protect the interests
of authors. At present, libraries do indeed lend books in electronic form under licensing
agreements concluded between libraries and publishers, which is principally of benefit to
publishers or other intermediaries in the electronic book trade, whereas no adequate remuneration
1

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 (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 28).

www.curia.europa.eu

 is received by authors. If, by contrast, digital lending were regarded as coming within the scope of
the directive, authors would as a result receive fair remuneration, in addition to that generated by
the sale of books and independently of agreements concluded with publishers.
The Advocate General also concludes that an interpretation of the concept of lending which
includes the lending of electronic books is contrary to neither the objective nor the wording of the
directive. Moreover, such an interpretation is in no way incompatible or inconsistent with the
various provisions of EU law in the field of copyright or with the EU’s international obligations.
Lastly, the Advocate General expresses the view that, when introducing the exception for the
public lending of electronic books, Member States may require that those books should first have
been made available to the public by the rightholder or with his consent and that they are obtained
from lawful sources. By contrast, according to the Advocate General, the mechanism of exhaustion
of the distribution right bears no relation to the lending right.
NOTE: The Advocate General’s Opinion is not binding on the Court of Justice. It is the role of the Advocates
General to propose to the Court, in complete independence, a legal solution to the cases for which they are
responsible. The Judges of the Court are now beginning their deliberations in this case. Judgment will be
given at a later date.
NOTE: A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes
which have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of
European Union law or the validity of a European Union act. The Court of Justice does not decide the
dispute itself. It is for the national court or tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance with the Court’s
decision, which is similarly binding on other national courts or tribunals before which a similar issue is raised.
Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice.
The full text of the Opinion is published on the CURIA website on the day of delivery.
Press contact: Holly Gallagher  (+352) 4303 3355

www.curia.europa.eu