## Facts

- Phil Collins, a U.K. performer, gave a live performance in the United States that was recorded and released on compact disc without his consent.
- A German distributor marketed the unauthorized recording in Germany.
- German law granted German-national performers an exclusive right to prohibit marketing in Germany of unauthorized phonograms fixed abroad, but denied that right to performers who were nationals of other EU Member States when the performance occurred outside Germany.
- Collins sought interim relief in a German court to stop further marketing; the court referred questions to the EU court on whether this nationality-based distinction was permitted.
- A parallel German dispute raised the same Treaty question concerning the denial of equivalent “neighboring rights” protection to non-German EU nationals; the matters were addressed together due to overlapping legal issues.

## Issues

1. Whether copyright and related (“neighboring”) rights fall within the Treaty’s scope so that the general prohibition on nationality discrimination applies.
2. Whether EU law forbids a Member State from granting an exclusive right to prohibit marketing of unauthorized phonograms fixed abroad only to its own nationals, while denying the same right to nationals of other Member States.
3. Whether the Treaty’s non-discrimination rule can be invoked directly before national courts by non-nationals (and those claiming under them) to obtain equal protection.

## Decision

- The court held that copyright and related rights fall within the Treaty’s scope because of their economic character and effects on intra-EU trade in goods and services.
- The court ruled that the Treaty’s nationality non-discrimination provision precludes national legislation that reserves to nationals alone the right to prohibit domestic marketing of unauthorized phonograms of performances fixed abroad, while denying that right to other Member State nationals in comparable situations.
- The court held that the non-discrimination rule has direct effect and may be relied on before national courts by authors or performers from other Member States, and by persons claiming under them, to obtain the same protection afforded to nationals.
- The referring national courts were required to resolve the disputes consistently with that interpretation, disapplying the discriminatory limitation.

## Legal Principles

- EU non-discrimination on grounds of nationality applies to copyright and neighboring rights when those rights affect intra-EU trade and commercial exploitation.
- A Member State may not condition the availability of statutory neighboring-rights protection on the right holder’s nationality when EU nationals are otherwise similarly situated.
- The Treaty-based right to equal treatment in this context is directly enforceable in national courts, permitting non-national EU right holders (and their successors in title) to claim protection granted to nationals.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that EU nationality non-discrimination governs neighboring-rights protection and bars Member States from reserving key exclusive rights to their own nationals; non-national EU performers and their transferees can invoke the Treaty directly to obtain equal protection in national proceedings.


Collins v. Imtrat Handelsgesellschaft GmbH, Case C-92/92, E.C.R. I-5145 (C.J.E.U. 1993)