LSG-Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung von Leistungsschutzrechten GmbH – CJEU Judgment (Austria, 2009)
CJEU precedent (Directive 95/46/EC, pre-GDPR)
This is a Court of Justice judgment predating the GDPR. It interprets Directive 95/46/EC (the Data Protection Directive). It is not a cookie or ePrivacy case and is excluded from cookie statistics and the Risk Calculator.
The Court of Justice addressed a case where LSG-Gesellschaft sought information from Tele2 about users who allegedly infringed copyright. The court ruled that Tele2, as an internet provider, could be required to provide user information in certain circumstances. This ruling is significant for copyright enforcement and the responsibilities of internet service providers.
What happened
LSG-Gesellschaft requested Tele2 to provide personal information about users linked to IP addresses involved in copyright violations.
Who was affected
Users of Tele2 whose IP addresses were associated with copyright infringement activities.
What the authority found
The Court determined that Tele2 could be considered an intermediary and may need to disclose user information in civil proceedings for copyright infringement.
Why this matters
This ruling clarifies the responsibilities of internet providers in protecting copyright and sets a precedent for how user data can be accessed in legal cases.
LSG was a society acting as a trustee to enforce the rights of music producers and artists in respect of the exploitation of their work. After LSG clients suffered financial loss due copyright infringements (in particular the creation of file-sharing systems on which people exchanged copies of saved musics), LSG decided to file civil proceedings. In this context, it requested the Commercial Court of Vienna to order Tele2, an internet access provider who assigned IP addresses to its clients, to provide information about the holders of these IP addresses. The information included names and physical addresses. Tele2 argued that it was not an intermediary under Article 5(1)(a) and 8(3) of Directive 2001/29. The Commercial Court did not follow Tele2’s position. It considered Tele2 as an intermediary and ordered it to provide the requested information. Tele2 therefore filed an appeal with the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court), stating that as an Internet provider, it didn’t exercise control over the services the users use. The Supreme Court decided to refer two questions to the CJEU in order to obtain clarification regarding the interpretation of Articles 5(1)(a) and 8(3) of Directive 2001/29. (1) “Is the term “intermediary” in Article 5(1)(a) and Article 8(3) of Directive [2001/29] to be interpreted as including an access provider who merely provides a user with access to the network by allocating him a dynamic IP address but does not himself provide him with any services such as email, FTP or file sharing services and does not exercise any control, whether de iure or de facto, over the services which the user makes use of?” (2) “Is Article 8(3) of Directive [2004/48], regard being had to Article 6 and Article 15 of Directive [2002/58], to be interpreted (restrictively) as not permitting the disclosure of personal traffic data to private third parties for the purposes of civil proceedings for alleged infringements of exclusive rights protected by copyright (rights o
Outcome
CJEU Judgment
A judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union, typically on a preliminary reference from a national court.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for LSG-Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung von Leistungsschutzrechten GmbH in AT
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
Judgment Date
19 February 2009
Authority
Court of Justice of the European Union
GDPRhub ID
gdprhub-cjeu-5834About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. LSG-Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung von Leistungsschutzrechten GmbH - Austria (2009). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: