This is good news for businesses: The highly anticipated ECJ ruling in the “bluechip” case (C-822/24) confirms the core principle of the obligation to pay copyright levies. This obligation applies only if it is likely that the devices and storage media will be used for private copying. Now, this finding is neither new nor surprising; it has been repeatedly confirmed in case law. EU member states and other countries have established exemption and refund rules for copyright levies accordingly. So why is a renewed confirmation of this principle necessary at all?
Implementation in Practice
The principle seems clear. If a supplier or their end customer can demonstrate that the devices are used in a professional setting (for example, when a company or municipality procures PCs for its employees) exceptions or refunds may apply, as the likelihood of private copying is lower. However, applying for these or simply applying reduced rates is problematic in practice. As with many other compliance requirements, the regulations regarding exemption and refund of copyright levies vary widely across Europe. So much so that in some cases, they do not exist at all!
Furthermore, obtaining a refund for levies is often difficult. This is precisely where the aforementioned court rulings come into play, as do some national initiatives. Even where there is a clear distinction between sales of PCs, smartphones, or copiers to private or professional end-users, the burden of applying for and providing proof remains with the supplier. The procedures for exemption or reimbursement are time-consuming and complicated. And sometimes, they are not even known. This is why, for example, in France in 2024, only 5 million euros were claimed out of an estimated volume of 50 to 70 million euros in reimbursement claims.
The Effort is Worth It
For many years, 1cc GmbH has been supporting internationally active manufacturers and distributors, IT service providers, and system integrators in applying for exemptions, in securing exemptions for providers or individual products, and in obtaining copyright levy refunds. The day-to-day, practical application of relevant national regulation confirms that this is a demanding process. Not only do the procedures for exemption and refunding differ significantly from country to country, but the very grounds for claiming them also vary. For instance, there is often no possibility of a general exemption from the outset but only reimbursement after the fact. Furthermore, in many cases, there are no standardised procedures but rather individual application processes.
After all, we’re talking about large volumes here—and thus a lot of money. This is because companies or public contracting authorities typically procure larger quantities, not individual devices. Thus, all obligated companies benefit from the fact that the bluechip ruling once again emphasizes the need to distinguish between private and professional use.
If you would like to be informed of all developments, please book our Alert Service.