## Facts

- A film rights owner granted Ciné Vog Films exclusive distribution and exhibition rights for the film *Le Boucher* in Belgium, including cinema and later television showings.
- The Coditel companies operated cable retransmission networks in Belgium, distributing broadcast signals to subscribers via central reception and cable.
- A German television broadcaster lawfully aired *Le Boucher* with the consent of the original rights owner.
- Coditel received the German broadcast signal and retransmitted the film by cable to subscribers in Belgium without authorization from Ciné Vog.
- Ciné Vog sued in Belgium for copyright infringement and damages based on the Belgian territorial exclusivity it held.
- A Belgian trial court ordered Coditel to pay damages; on appeal, the Brussels appellate court referred questions to the Court of Justice for interpretation of the Treaty rules on freedom to provide services.

## Issues

1. Whether the Treaty’s freedom to provide services precludes a territorial exclusive film-rights assignee in one Member State from invoking national copyright to stop cable retransmission in that State of a broadcast originating in another Member State with the original owner’s consent.
2. Whether contractual geographic limits on exploitation of film rights, even when aligned with national borders, are incompatible with freedom to provide services.

## Decision

- The Court held that the freedom to provide services does not generally override national copyright rules, except where enforcement operates as arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States.
- The Court ruled that the Treaty does not preclude a territorial assignee from prohibiting, within its territory, unauthorized cable diffusion of a film picked up after a lawful broadcast in another Member State.
- The Court stated that agreed geographic limits in an assignment of film copyright are not, in principle, barred by the Treaty, even if the limits coincide with national frontiers.
- The Court provided a preliminary ruling and left application of the interpretation to the national appellate court.

## Legal Principles

- Treaty rules on freedom to provide services do not encompass limits arising from national intellectual-property protection, unless the application constitutes arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on intra-EU trade.
- Copyright in a cinematographic film includes control over and remuneration for each public exhibition; territorial licensing can be a legitimate method of exploiting those rights.
- Geographic limits in copyright assignments are not, as such, incompatible with freedom to provide services, including where practical conditions in broadcasting make non-territorial allocation impracticable.
- An exclusive territorial assignee may enforce its performing/exhibition rights to prevent unauthorized cable retransmission of a film within its territory, even when the signal originates from a lawful foreign broadcast.

## Conclusion

The Court held that enforcing territorial film copyright against unauthorized cable retransmission does not, by itself, violate freedom to provide services; incompatibility arises only if enforcement is used to discriminate or to disguise restrictions on cross-border trade.


Coditel v. Ciné Vog Films, Case 62/79 (C.J.E.C. 1980)